media and obama campaign and their allies to feed this. mitt romney have very little to say. he kept on saying, i want to talk about the economy. it was based on the underlying assumption that everybody does, i have been successful i enter business. there is a very little -- especially with countries that did that knowing a lot better than massachusetts voters he did not tell its own story about the olympics. he did not say a lot of specific things about the economy. we were talking about mitt romney and economy. >> he had created a problem for himself. as sasha pointed out, romney had

to get through a primary. it was a very big primary. [laughter] he did take some positions in the primary. when you look at the polling, sometimes the democrats are popular and sometimes they are not. lately, democrats do better on foreign policies. romney have really gotten himself out on some limbs that he's had problems getting back. he says he wants to talk about the economy. that means that the economy's ups and he wants everyone to know about it.

-- the economy sucks and you want everyone to know about it. getting specific only cause him problems. >> here is another issue where you get into a little bit of a specific problem. this one is for charlie. in mitt romney's except and speech, he said that he will repeal obamacare. there are two issues imbedded in there -- is obamacare really so bad that the republicans would take it on squarely when is it a democrat sneak in with the few more positive things about it? it's poll numbers are starting to go up a little bit.

also there is idea that whatever our problems are, obamacare has not really kicked in. is that what is causing increasing health care costs? >> i used to write a blog at harvard pilgrim. >> it was great. >> i wrote that any reform plan would be better than the status quo. at the obamacare is worse than the status quo -- i think t obamacare is worse than the status quo. it did not do anything about the fact we had a system where most folks have chronic illnesses and what they need is help with

managing what i would describe as -- that is what health care services are supposed to be about. they got hit harder than anyone coming out of that legislation. it is going to increase the federal deficit. i do not come away with it think it is part of the answer. i used to write a lot of what i do instead. ok? this would be a good question to ask you, mike. i struggled with this issue a lot. so our reporters are wrote columns that my wife was pretty funny. how do you talk about policy

matters in a serious way and at a level that is understandable and that the same time meaningful? what end up happening is that i would flop onto the ground and lose everyone. but if you talk about it up here, people criticize you for not being specific. >> i do not know. neither does barack obama. it is hard. i tell a lot of stories about what they're wrestling with in the white house. i am always talking about this stimulus. they thought they had a very simple message.

we are doing tax cuts, but we are also doing spending. we are saving the economy in the short term, but transforming it in the long term with clean energy and lower health care costs and education reform and new economic order. we are doing stimulus now because we are in an economic emergency, but we will take it to fiscal responsibility later. we are cutting taxes for 95 percent of the population are raising effort to%. is a very simple -- raising taxes for the 2%. it is a very simple two-part message. many people say that bill clinton should be the secretary who says things. it does not seem to me like he is doing any kind of magic. he has long bartok and people do

not want to listen -- she has a longer -- he has a longer talk and people do not want to listen. sasha and i are paid to watch this stuff. we know about some of these details and where people are fudging the truth. most people do not. the sound bites are incredibly powerful. >> charlie, can ask about health care? if you were a voter looking at these two candidate and your ronnie's a, i will be repealing -- you hear romney say, i i will be appealing obamacare -- would people upset about health care blame obamacare? when people think about going into the voting booth, wouldn't

they say, we're getting rid obamacare, but he has not said what would replace it. the default becomes the status quo. how will this all end up? >> the big question is -- how many people will vote on the side of the federal deficit? that for me is my number one issue. i have three kids. ooming them.i'm doin i was brought up their traditional. he tried to make sure that at the end of the day, the bill is paid. -- i try to make sure that at the billf the day,

is paid. that is the defining issue more than anything else. it is a no-brainer from my point of view. i think that depends to some extent on whether -- there is like, millions of variations on this theme. when you ask me what i think about the electorate on health care, there are a whole bunch of people will have pretty good coverage and big words. that is a pretty big number. there is a bunch of people who are in medicare. they worry a lot about their health care and about medicare. they are at an age in their lives were it is more important

than it was 10 or 15 years ago. as we get older, health care becomes a much higher priority issue. i do not know how the back-and- forth of medicare will play out. i think for a lot of folks for whom medicare really matters, that will have a lot to do with where they decide. >> " you mentioned that bill clinton speech and elizabeth warren speech. there is a provision in obamacare that says 80% of what you take in has to be on a patient over care and not on administrative overhead. is that a winner? people are perking up their ears when they hear about that. >> in the massachusetts i believe it is 90% on the health care forum that passed.

the answer is -- and this falls into what people pay attention to -- take a $1 billion and spread across the population that is involved. i think a few bucks. the way you get it is by doing an adjustment in the premium the next month. if the premium is a high to a smallth and you ge ta smat adjustment, you might not notice. you may not notice that. i do not know if people will notice. someone would have to put it out to them. that is the short answer. >> there is cynicism in the

ability of washington to do anything in people's lives. i wonder if it is the administration or congress or any piece of legislation that could be credited by a large portion of population for improving benefits of people's lives because there is such lying cynicism about the institution. this is one of the themes of michael's books. especially the tax cuts that no one ever knew happened. you have the example of a rebate. if congress is pulling at the% approval rating -- 12% approval rating, it will never occur that

any improvement in people's lives is due to them. have the democrats created a successful theme in -- >> we are in a moment where they are philosophically opposed to government intervention in markets. that could include the government and big business. i do not think those are the assumptions. >> republicans accuse obama of representing the government. obama accuses romney of representing big business. >> that does not mean the voter has to choose one over the other. we should be clear.

campaigns have debates. candidates have debates with one another the not necessarily targeted at change in voters' minds. there are limitations to what mitt romney can say in the role of big business. there is nothing untoward about that. and obama has constituencies in the labor movement. public employee unions are a huge part of the democratic coalition. they are a huge source of manpower going into election. there are certain things and he talks in abstract.

>> people are very dissatisfied that the economy is bad. the only thing they are fixating on is the agenda in washington and the positions of the republican party. given that, obama is pulling ahead right now and the election was held today, most people feel like he would win. is there any concern or distrusting of corporations? big profits at the risk of the average guy? are the republicans attacking what obama's solutions are?

>> i do not think in the electoral terms the debate has to be about that. i think right now, based on what we can tell from the polling, voters do not think the economy is so horrible that they will take up incumbent solely because of that, and/or they do not blame him fundamentally for the estate of the economy, and romney is an incredibly unpopular nominee who is not trusted on international issues. when the race is like that, there is a very small burden on obama to worry about anything else.

especially on women's issues and reproductive stuff. >> i would push back on that a little. neither candidate has cracked 50%. it is clear that this notion of everyone loves him or not -- there isn't that. the president is an enormously likable guy. even if it over 60% of voters seem to think the economy is on the wrong track, i mean, he has done a good job of making the case that he inherited problems. he is trying his best. it will take a heck of a lot longer than he thought. he sold that.

he spent billions of dollars on why mitt romney was a bad guy. that resulted in no deal coming from the other side. that was definitely a piece of work. you're talking about a race in which the states will decide the election. we will see. i do not believe it is anywhere close to where you believe it is. >> i have not seen -- >> the debates will be more important. the debates will be real important. >> if i could put on my policy hat on again, we have this polarized country. people who did not like obama from the beginning still do not like him.

his numbers -- after the stimulus debate -- have been unstable. the tea party went crazy. how will this play? how will this play? it has been very stable. a couple of lessons sasha is writing about the mechanics of politics. for policy, one thing it shows is that you can do a lot of stuff. you can do your agenda. my book is about this guy who did not have a lot of new ideas. they read the same old ideas, but he went ahead and did them. some of them were popular and some of them were not popular at the time. now it is this and this. the fact is whether he has been

successful or unsuccessful. they have not changed his numbers. he still had 8% unemployment for god knows how long. he is still popular, but not too popular. he is at a decent position, but not a great position. the student loan thing, that is great politics. very stable things. as long as you have the power, you might as well do things rather than organizing -- agonizing over the politics. >> we have to invite people not to start thinking about their questions. we have 10 or 15 minutes. think about it. monaco will collect the questions -- monica will collect the questions.

>> people do not know a lot about policy. there is no good reason why even real educated bordevoters know whether the market has a need for what they are doing. voters interpret policies through the lens of whether they like the party or the individual. you know, i do not understand how the health care industry works. i do not understand how insurance companies work. that is not my expertise. people who like barack obama thought that his health care plan was pretty good. people who did not like him thought it was pretty bad. it goes back to where the the understand -- whether they understand incredibly complex

piece of legislation. voters need to feel if the person is on their side and not. >> people take their cues from their party leaders. for the deficit, you can just as easily imagine a democrat saying that the deficit is the biggest issue because look at what happened under bush and look at how paul ryan voted for every deficit this and that. most voters, i do not like it because of those dirty liberals. >> we should go through these fairly quickly. i will nominate one person to answer because we have a lot of questions right here. the want to talk about the impact of the auto industry

position for present obama and mitt romney. that is a really good question. the auto s words, industry gets the elevator and the workers get the shaft. romney has established the midwest as a crucial battleground. obama is not the popular there. he has as of the industry bailout in his back pocket. mike, tell me, what will the impact be of of the industry bailout? >> it put michigan out of reach for running. -- romney. he is not trying to claim that he was for it all along.

it is one of those things where you do not know. certainly the people who said that the government -- general motors would be doomed were wrong. you could see that the whole gmma bin laden is dead enand is alive. >> sasha, why have republicans push for voter identification? there are very few cases of voter fraud. there has been a large but identification laws that were pushed by right-wing organizations. a disproportionate number of

minorities do not have cars. it will be difficult for them to drive out to the polling places. how will this play out? >> some of the electorate could be affected by it. individual pinpoint voters who lack ids, we contact them and sort of run a system to get them to physically get documents beforehand. it is a huge statistical challenge. >> it is a big problem for the democrats. >> they take it very seriously.

>> quickly moving on. obama over promised and under delivered. >> obama had a super majority in the senate and had congress for the first two years he was there. >> no, he did not. >> anyone who thinks he did not have the majority of this legislature and the bully pulpit is kidding themselves. he is not taken seriously in the deficit. he made a big spiel about stimulus now and cut the deficit

later. some of us are still weighing in on that one. most people thought the budget he has submitted are now worth the income they were printed on. this is a message to the voters that he does not care very much about that issue. >> sasha, this one is for you. neither side references the supreme court. will more people be alienated if they bring this up in regards to social issues? the supreme court -- and they're literally have been abortion e its -- there hav literally been abortion suites. -- suits. how serious is abortion?

>> i think the voters know very little about the supreme court. -- ers are perceptible, abou 15%.uade a boable, 12%- the supreme court is an incredibly abstract concern. it is to be used for active as voters on each side. and they're now incredibly vivid and real debates that both sides are involved in. it could be bob gay marriage or reproductive rights. -- it could be about gay marriage or reproductive rights. >> next issue for mike.

outsourcing -- how can we create american jobs in a global economy? gold economy, american jobs, the suggestion to me is that romney himself have various incentives to do things overseas. how would that play out? >> i am not sure what the question is? >> how can american job creators create jobs in america? >> outsourcing -- no one likes it during a campaign. it is not a coincidence that even the romney and obama are both free traders, romney is running ads of obama of outsourcing wind turbines to china. we have in soars to wind turbines from the rest of the

world. -- insourced wind turbines from the rest of the world. ultimately after the election is over, i think the status quo will -- >> most people in washington, i think, a majority think that the biggest problem we have with respect to international global competition is our corporate tax rate. it is too high. it is riddled with all kinds of exemptions. i thought there was a fair amount of agreement that one of the things that should happen is that we need to reduce our rates and their rid of those exemptions. it would make our tax cut generally simple, easy to

understand, and more competitive. it is a shame that that idea was alive for about three weeks and they got lost. we do have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. it is a problem. >> this is a very good question for you. i thought bill clinton of's most compelling point was on romney's plan to lower taxes. he called for a major tax cut beyond what we how right now. what he said is backed -- lower taxes have to be economically neutral. clinton said this would impact the middle class inversely. romney lott really increase the deficit with this big tax cut. -- romney will really increase the deficit with this big tax cut.

that revenue would go toward his the tax cuts. >> interesting. he has not really said anything, but he did talk about a new tax policy. >> he did not say it in the speech. >> in my view, people use the tax code to raise a lot of money to support candidates. that is what it is therefore. i think it is inefficient and anti-competitive. we need to fix it. i think romney would be more interested in fixing it than obama. look at obama's performance. he did not deliver on the things that he said he would deliver. he certainly did not deliver on any of the things that are important to me. >> can romney help convince

voters of this without giving details? if -- is clinton correct that this is a possibility? >> i am not sure about the latter part of it. adam romney has done anything to make this a debate over the specifics of that tax policy. -- i do not think romney has done anything to make this a debate over the specifics of that tax policy. we should get rid of regulations and be more competitive. the things that can payments due to define the conversation in the terms that it wants -- the things that campaigns due to the fund that conversation in terms of what it wants, i do not think --

unemployment is where it is. the economy is bad. i think you see a little bit of a romney flailing of it. he is trying to grasp that new issues. -- at new issues. we still have about six or seven weeks left in this election. we are starting to see the clues that romney is looking for a way to redefine the terms of this debate. >> one person asked me about the group and journalist. this is a left-wing kind of service or their rescinding ideas to journalists and stuff. i was never part of journalism. so that answers that. [laughter]

ok, charlie, you're not a journalist, as he cannot answer this one. i think we covered most of the issues. to finish up, i want to give each of you a very brief chance to talk about what you think we will see in the next two bon months. >> then in february you apply what we actually said -- will play what we actually said. [laughter] >> i think the debates are very important. if you live in a swing state, you'll see a great number of ads, probably-. -- negative. the most interesting thing about the election four years ago was that most people thought it would be about iraq.

on september 15, the world financial markets froze. everything became about the economy. we thought that this risk would be about the economy and not the personalities of the candidate. i wonder if what is happening in the middle east will turn into something much larger from now until election day. it can never tell exactly what it is that will create the context on election day. that might turn out to be a much bigger deal than we ever thought it would be. >> i was taught that their campaigns for operating on multiple levels. i wrote about how campaigns could e-books and really -- evolve and really committed differently with one household than their neighbors. a campaign can have a discussion

with a set of individuals and across demographic individuals. the day to day big news story we are talking about does not necessarily where the companiocn is devoting their resources. there was back and forth yesterday about egypt and libya. obama was spending his money talking to people in ohio about what mitt romney was talking to people in florida about. be aware that they are missing the secondary, tertiary levels of conversations taking place. in theollowing it newspapers and on cable. >> i think it will be ugly. [laughter]

it is interesting. it is unusual to have two candidates that have a positive message about america. there is no question that this is an extreme base and election trying to fire of people. that guy is scary. that guy is awful. not only that, the flip side of firing up the bass and trying to depress the other guy's base. i think go be a lot of that. obama does not seem to want to run on his record. and romney does not want to run on his plan other than things will be different. in, i we can believ eie guess, because you need to

believe. i think it will be nasty. neither guy seems to really like each other. whatever kind of breaks the were in 2008, whether it was because of the phenomenon of a black candidate in a general election for the first time or because of the circumstances of eight years of bush, i do not know. there were certain lines that were not cross. this time, i think there will be lines that will be crossed. >> well, on that note. [laughter] we have some wonderful books for sale for all ofyou. you. charlie, thank you for being here. you have no books to hock. [applause]

>> in less than three weeks, the first of the presidential debates, live on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. watch and engage. next, the house agenda for next week. after that, president of bomb and secretary clinton -- obama and secretary clinton received that remains of the victims from the libyan attacks. >> we can keep investing in the wind, solar, coal, and biofuels. our construction workers can build homes and factories that waste less energy. >> i will take advantage of our gas, oil, north america will be energy independent within years. >> watch and engage with c-span

as a presidential campaigns move toward october debates. energy policy is likely one of the topics in the first 90- minute debate on october 3. foreign policy will be the focus of the final debate on october 22. you can watch the candidates debate. follow our coverage on c-span, c-span radio, and online at c- span.org. >> now i discussion of next week's house agenda with eric cantor and steny hoyer. this is about 40 minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to speak out of order for a minute. >> without objection. >> i am pleased to yield to my friend, mr. cantor.

>> i thank the gentleman from maryland for yielding. mr. speaker, on monday and tuesday no votes are expected in the house. on wednesday the house will meet at noon. but will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on thursday, the house will meet at noon for legislative business. on friday the house will meet. let's votes are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will review a number of bills next week, including a prioritization of visas for foreign graduates of american universities in the stem field. it is an issue that is championed by several congressmen. in addition, the house will consider a piece of legislation

relating to waivers of work requirement with respect to needed assistance for family programs. in addition, there is a package of bills to expand domestic energy production and help create american jobs. lastly, mr. speaker, members are advised that with the senate expected passage of the continuing resolution, we no longer anticipate both in the house during the week of october 1. this is a change from the original house calendar. i thank the gentleman and yelled back. >> i thank the gentleman. -- i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman.

i thank him for that information. we have approximately a little over a day and a half or a deer and three-quarters remaining before the election. i want to ask the gentleman about the work that has not been done. we have not of the jobs bill that i have been urging us to consider. we have not addressed the middle class tax cut in a way in which both sides agree. we have disagreement on the tax cuts for those not in the middle class. i want to discuss the farm bill. the violence against women act, the farm bill, both passed in

the u.s. senate. postal reform is also there. there has been an agreement on that. also, is sequestration. i also want to talk about that. the farm bill, we have a discharge position that is pending. it is somewhat unusual. our party has initiated a discharge position to ask you to bring to the floor a bill that your committee reported out of committee. that is somewhat unusual in a discharge position. a number of republicans have signed on to that, as you know. we understand that your suggestion that they do sign onto that as an indication of their support for the farm bill.

the senate passed the farm bill 64-35, mr. leader. we are hoping that bill will be brought to the floor next week. it is not on the calendar. in light of the fact that 16 republicans voted in favor of it in the senate is clear that it does have a broad bipartisan support. ipod the committee here in this house -- the committee in this house has brought it to the floor. we do not have much time left. even if we count thursday as a full day and friday as a full day of next week, we have essentially two the days, and then suspension votes on wednesday night. many farmers are facing the worst drought they have seen in many years. we have passed a farm bill that

has been approved by the senate. the farm community opposes the drug bill that we passed. -- drought bill that we passed. farmers are opposed to it because it does not give them any certainty. they think a five-year is preferable. the hope that we would pass that. i would ask the gentleman, there fore, if there is any possibility we would consider a farm bill. is there any possibility that before we leave their

reconsideration for the crisis that the farm he made the case is that we would consider that bill. i yield my time. >> i thank the gentleman. the gentleman well knows that's we have sent to the senate well over 30 measures of job creating bills that would help improve the environment for men and women. it would create jobs again. we did that on august 1st. it was a bipartisan vote. this followed up on 20 hearings on tax reforms. what we did in that bill, as the gentleman recalls, it is the major that taxes would not go up on anyone right now because of the economic situation that

exists. we do not believe it is a desirable outcome to see taxes go up on anyone or to take more of their money while they are having a difficult time getting through the months. that is by been we believe that we continue to stand on the side of the hard-working taxpayers. we ask the gentleman -- we passed the jobs bill. we passed over 30 jobs bill that is sitting in the senate. the inaction is on the senate. mr. speaker, with the gentleman's question about the farm bill, we talked about the farm bill. we are trying to look for ways forward. yes, there could be a possibility that we act on the issue of the disaster of the drought. as the gentleman said, we passed

the drought bill. it is sitting in the senate. again, in action. there is nothing in the bill that is controversial. it is about -- the farmers. why cannot get this done? there are some areas of disagreement and we realize that like reasonable people do. because it is election season, people of this size on that. the drought issue is something we have in common. please ask the gentleman if there can be any movement on that for the farmers. we want to move forward. yes, there could be a

possibility of action on the issue of the farm bill. we want to find ways in which we can work together on issues that we support and not divide. i yield back. >> i think the comments of the gentleman are interesting. we do have agreement on the farm bill. 64 votes. almost two-thirds of the senate. we may not have an agreement, but we had a bill that came out of the republican-led committee, your committee. there's over two-thirds of the vote. neither of those were brought to the floor. we had pretty significant disagreement over. you had some democrats who voted for the drought relief. but the farm committee is opposed to the drought bill. we ought to pass that in which

we have agreement. 97% os small businesspeople agree on not having a tax increase. the gentleman is worried about the people who make $25,000 per month. i am worried about people making $2,000 per month, frankly. i am worried about the people who are having trouble. we need to give them assurance. the announcement just said that we ought to be able to act upon that in which we agree. i think the gentleman may be incorrect. on this side of the aisle, we will produce the overwhelming majority of votes on our side of the aisle for a bill that insures that there will be no tax increases on those who are making either individually

under $200,000 per year, or as a husband and but, at $250,000 per year. i am sure the gentleman we will produce on this side well over 180 votes for that proposition. i tell my friend that all he has to do is give us 40 votes. i think he will produce many more than that. unless he says i am wrong, when you say that nobody ought to get a tax increase, we have an agreement. that is what the gentleman was talking about. we have an agreement that no one under $250,000, a couple, should get a tax increase on january 1 of this year. we can pass this bill next week. we can send it to the senate. they have already passed a bill. we have adopted the proposition.

we have a majority of votes in the senate. on that proposition. what i think i hear the gentleman saying is that unless we have an agreement on 100%, the fact that we agree on 98%, we will not move the bill. i would hope that we can move it. i yield to my friend. >> i thank the dunton for yielding. -- gentleman for yielding. we are concerned about those individuals that the gentleman speaks about. arenderstand those ar-- they those who are struggling. we want them to get jobs and go back to work.

the gentlemen and's tax policy, the president of's plan to raise taxes, will the storage thousands of jobs and slash funds from the economy. that. tha tstudy -- that is what that study said. we're trying to focus on the people who need to get back to work and want to get back to work. that is where the agreement is. they cannot seem to figure out a way to fix the problem once and for all. that is what we want to do. the ones to fix the problem and help those people. i yield back. >> we understand that you want

to see no tax increases and no additional contributions by people making $1 billion or more. or $10 million of taxable income. we understand. we simply do not agree with that. we do agree that 98% of americans who make less than $200,000 individually and less than two earned $50,000 as a couple, those americans ought not to get a tax increase on january 1. frankly, you did not respond to me, but i presume you agree with that. what you do not agree with -- that is what is causing gridlock in congress. that is why the fsrm barm bill s

not been passed. we agreed that 90% of american should not get a tax increase. that is what i am hearing you say. >> i thank that gentleman for yielding. not why these bills haven't passed. the violence against women bill passed out of this house, sitting over in the senate because the senate has its own bill that has a blue slip problem. let them send the -- let the legislative process work over there, send as you bill and we'll get something done. the gentleman did not join us in that bill. so the fact that the minority didn't get their way, they wouldn't join us on the bill. we went and did our work.

and i'd say more to the gentleman, mr. speaker. you know, the postal reform bill, the fact of the matter is this side, mr. speaker, the minority will not agree to reforms. everyone knows the post office needs reforms. everyone knows the debt that that organization continues to incur and lays on the u.s. taxpayers. we're trying to fix that problem. but because the gentleman and his colleagues refuse to go along with reforms like a five-day delivery. this is something that the president supports. but because his side refuses to go along with trying to reform that organization, we can't move. we can't do that. we all know that's common sense. common sense in reforming the postal service, something everyone knows needs reform. that's why this bill didn't pass. and we've got another issue on

the farm bill. there are issues of policy differences. and the gentleman knows, throughout last year we went through a lot of these policy differences in the snap program and the rest. we have g.a.o. recommendations year in and year out about that program. but unwillingness on the part of the nye mortgage to ever -- minority to ever engage in a discussion on real reform on those programs. let's remember what we're talking about in the farm bill. most of it by far is not farm programs. they're food programs. again, raising the question of how it is we're going to go forward. we need to understand the specifics and other real policy differences. yes, we're all willing to work together. or at least we are on this side. so i really take exception with the gentleman's assertions that somehow we're sitting here demanding everything. no. we want to work together and set

aside differences and agree on things we can find in common. that's how anybody in everyday life tries to run their business or their family. it's not all or nothing, it's not black or white. and so i yield back. mr. hoyer: i say we agread on 8%. the gentleman has not said we don't agree on 98%. he brought up a lot of stuff on the farm bill and other pieces of legislation. farm bill? you're not bringing your own bill to the floor. forget about what we think on this side. you reported out of a -- out a farm bill. you reported out a farm bill some four or five months ago, i'm not sure exactly when, but it's been months ago and you have not brought it to the floor. it's not a request of whether we agree or not, your own bill you haven't brought to the floor. in terms of the violence against women act, you knew that the senate wouldn't do that and the president said he was going to veto it. you didn't sit down with the president to do it because you want to exclude some people. you want to exclude some people who were subject to domestic violence. in this country. when all the experts say if you exclude people we don't get

reports, we can't get domestic abusers out of circulation, if you will. so, i think the gentleman's characterization is not accurate. i would say, with all due respect. mr. cantor: that's not true, mr. speaker. mr. hoyer: which is not true? i said a number of things. mr. cantor: will the gentleman yield? mr. hoyer: i will yield. the speaker pro tempore: if members would please address remarks to the chair. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i would say to the gentleman, it's not true. we don't want to exclude anybody from the benefits and he knows that. it was simply a matter of new language inserted by the senate that really -- we don't want to deny those benefits to anyone. we want everyone to have the benefits and not exclude some by specifically identifying others. and the gentleman knows that. it's unfair to characterize anything we're trying to do to exclude people from benefits when they are subject to domestic abuse. all of us care about those victims.

i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank -- mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for his observations. we have a difference of opinion. on whether or not they want to exclude people. because the senate bill was inclusive and every woman member , republican, of the united states senate voted for it. everyone. that was the difference between the two bills. those who were included and a more specific group that are now included, which we think they ought to be, but we also think there aren't people include who had need to be. with all due respect i think my characterization was absolutely accurate. but it's interesting, mr. speaker, that we still haven't eabed the question -- answered the question. we tend to want to talk about other things. 98% of americans should not get a tax increase on january 1 that are making less than $250,000 individually as a family. i think we agree on that.

mr. speaker, now i haven't heard that we don't agree on that but we agree on that which means there are 2% on which we do not agree. and that bill has not been brought to the floor that passed the united states senate dealing with that 98%. or 97% of small business. now, mr. speaker, it seems to me if we have agreement on 98% and the president of the united states will sign that bill, the majority leader knows, that i know it and the american people know it. he will sign that bill. that bill has not moved, not because of the 98%, but because of the 2%. that's my contention, mr. speaker. i believe that is accurate. because the senate has passed a bill that deals with the 98%. we ought to pass that bill, we ought to pass it before we leave here next week, which will be the last few days of this session before the election. and the american people at least ought to have that on the floor and, yes, if you want to assert that we want to raise additional

revenues to meet our debt, so that our children are not put deeply into debt, and, yes, those of us who are doing better can pay a little more to make sure that our children aren't in debt when they get to be adults, yes, we can have that debate. bring the bill to the floor. and let us pass the senate bill and i would hope our republican colleagues would join us and say at least we're going to take care of the 98%. then we'll argue with the 2%. we'll argue about whether or not that's good policy or bad policy. whether it hurts the economy or grows the economy. very frankly i tell my friend, the majority leader, i was here in 1993. the gentleman was not, i believe. but i was here in 1993 when we raised revenues on the upper 1.5%, 1.75% of american taxpayers. your side said, as that study which we think is a flawed study said, that it would hurt the economy, it would increase the

deficit and the unemployment. as the gentleman well knows, it did exactly the opposite. in conjunction with an extraordinary growth in the private sector, which your party said would be hurt by the action in 1993, which your party unanimously opposed. you're taking the same contention now and that study took the same proposition. it was wrong then, it is wrong now. i would hope very sincerely that we could agree on that on which we agree. because we agree on 98%. and let that move and not hold us hostage to the 2% on which we do not agree. i don't know whether the gentleman wants to respond to that. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i do, mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. again, i'd first of all ask, was there over 8% unemployment then? that's the first thing, mr. speaker. we are about trying to do something to get people back to work. and if you're worried about the 98%, which we all are, the best thing we can do is to make sure

there are more jobs and so our objection to the gentleman's proposal to raise taxes is the fact that those taxes, that tax hike that he's advocating, is going to affect 53% of all small business income. that's joint committee on tax says that. mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time, just so we're accurate, but not 53% of small businesses and the gentleman knows that, it's a misleading figure because 53% of the income comes from a very small percentage of so-called small businesses that are not in our opinion small businesses at all. the gentleman can correct me if he believes that 53% of small businesses -- because it's our contention that 97% of small businesses, really small businesses, people who are working hard, making it from day to day and trying to grow businesses and create jobs, 97% of small business will not be

affected by our proposal and if the gentleman thinks i'm incorrect i'd be glad to hear that. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, the point is about jobs. ok? and the jobs come from the small businesses who are generating income. if you want to help people who are creating jobs, don't raise their taxes, especially when unemployment is over 8%. it's about jobs. i mean, that's the thing, mr. speaker. it's always -- we always hear somehow that we are favoring some big, bad business. no, we are about the businesses who create jobs. small businesses. according to the small business administration definition, create jobs. so, mr. speaker, just because in the gentleman's mind that somehow somebody he doesn't like because they're so successful gets the benefit, the overwhelming majority of the people who will not get a tax hike on you understand our plan will go out and create a job. mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time.

mr. speaker, it is an absurd assertion that there are people i don't like. i would hope the gentleman would retract that. it has nothing to do with people we like or don't like. mr. cantor: i absolutely retract that, mr. speaker. but the gentleman continues to malign people who he feels don't deserve the same treatment on taxes. and what we're saying, if they're successful, that means they're creating jobs, that's the prescription we need right now is more jobs. our policy is about helping the small business men and women who are creating jobs so we can finally do something to bring this unemployment down and get people back to work. that's all. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, one of the greatest challenges to growing our economy is our debt and deficit. and the uncertainty of tax policy. that is one every economist will tell you that and certainly

every business person will tell you that. large, medium or small. and none of us on this side of the aisle have used -- i have not used pejorative terms with respect to large, medium or small businesses. that's not an issue at all. it is an issue as to whether or not we're going to continue to explode this deficit and debt, mr. speaker, or whether we're going to ask some of us to contribute some of us, i.e., perhaps members of this floor, to pay a little more so our children don't confront large deficits and debt. we heard a lot about personal responsibility in the republican convention. we ought to take personal responsibility and the gentleman continues to talk about jobs jeags -- creation. we want job creation. we have a make it in america agenda that unfortunately hasn't moved. we have a jobs bill that was offered by this president, that economists say would have created a million more jobs. it lays still on a desk

somewhere untended to, unconsidered and unpassed by this house. notwithstanding the fact that the leader and i have discussed that -- moving that bill to the floor on numerous occasions. i lament the fact when we talk about this, again, he has not said once that we don't agree on the 98%. that we don't agree on the 97%. i think the reason he hasn't said we don't agree on it, because we do agree on it. he said he doesn't want anybody to get a tax increase. and by the way, that tax increase, as the gentleman well knows, will result as a result of the 2001 and 2003 tax bills passed by the republicans in this house and in the senate and signed by george bush. that's why those taxes are going up on january 1. because you sunsetted that tax increase, didn't make it permanent. why did you do that? for scoring purposes. because you knew that it would

score great deficits. i want to tell the gentleman additionally, mr. speaker, that unemployment was 7%. the reason bill clinton won the election, because the economy was going downhill. that's the same reason barack obama won the election. answered talks about jobs -- and he talks about jobs. a policy that was unanimously opposed, mr. speaker, by the republican side of the aisle in the house and in the senate created 22 million private sector jobs. we know something about creating private sector jobs. notwithstanding the fact your contention on your side of the aisle, not yours personally, mr. leader, was that if we adopted that program, you took the same argument you're taking right now , right now, that raising additional revenues to bring our deficit and debt down would undermine the creation of jobs. in 1993 you were demonstrably wrong. i don't mean you personaly, mr. speaker, i'm referring simply to the republican party's position

on that. demonstrably wrong. 22 million new jobs. and in 2001 and 2003 you argued that if we bring taxes down on the people you were talking about and everybody else that we would explode the creation of jobs. you lost jobs in the private sector over those eight years, mr. leader, i'm sure you know that, about 600,000 net, you lost four million jobs in 2008, the last year of the bush administration. you lost 818,000 jobs in the last month, mr. speaker. 818,000 jobs were lost in the last month of the bush administration. .

it is lamentable that this is another instance where we continue to talk about bills for message purposes, that we know the president won't sign, he said he won't sign it, we know the senate won't pass, and we allow those 98% of americans to twist in the wind. because we will not deal with the other 2% and we're prepared to debate that, of course. and discuss it. but i'm very sorry that we apparently will not see in the next 2 1/2 days remaining before the election that we address the middle class tax cuts. i'll yield to the gentleman if

he wants to say anything further. i have one more subject i want to cover. mr. cantor: we believe that we've got a real spending problem here, mr. speaker. we've got a problem with an unwillingness to reform some programs. the gentleman talks about, you know, members having to pay more. in fact, it was our side that put forward the proposal that we should actually allow and require members as well as federal employees to pay more toward their retirement. the gentleman wasn't supportive of that. so again, we've got some serious unfunded obligations at the federal level. the american people know that.

we're trying to solve problems. the problems are not solved by raising taxes. now, the gentleman is so intent on raising taxes, again, because there is a 2% that he just wants to pay more. ok? he's so intent on doing, that i'd ask the gentleman to join us in actually fixing the problem that all experts say you can't tax your way out of and you can't grow your way out of. you got to reform the program. mr. speaker, week of been the only one to put forward a plan that even begins to solve the problem. the president has not, the senate has not and the gentleman has not. and again, it's about solving problems, producing results for the hardworking taxpayers of this country who so desperately want to see us go forward, reclaim america in its true aspirational sense and be that place of opportunity and i yield back. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i hear the gentleman.

i presume he refers to the ryan budget. of course the ryan budget does not balance the budget in a quarter of a century. the gentleman knows that. the ryan budget, of course, undermines the security of medicare for people. the majority leader mentions federal employees. the fact of the matter is my position, mr. speaker, and this is a subject i want to talk about, we need to get america on a fiscally sustainable credible path. that's the single most important objective that this congress ought to be addressing. and mr. speaker, very frankly it was addressed in a plan called the simpson-bowles plans, perfectly know. will we agree on everies a pkt? no. it was a plan that said we had to a balanced approach to doing

this. we had to deal with entitlements. we had to deal with revenues. and, mr. speaker, we are now collecting 14.8% of revenues. that's lower than at any point in time in the last 70 years. if we were a business we would have been bankrupt a long time ago. we could keep borrowing so we could keep spending without putting a pay-go discipline that we had in the 1990's that helped, mr. speaker, balance the budget four years in a row. the only administration in the lifetime of anybody hearing, seeing or knowing that we're here that that's been done. it was done because we paid for what we borrowed. mr. speaker, we're going to have an opportunity, not in the next two days of this session before the election, but we're going to have a lame duck. we're going to have to come

back here. we are going to have to do some serious things. we need to as americans, not as democrats, not as republicans, we need to have a conviction that we need to come back here and not walk away from our responsibilities. very frankly the bowles-simpson, every republican member of that group from the house walked away from it, voted no. said, no, we will not agree. and so it didn't get the 14 votes it needed to be brought to this floor. i think that's a sad fact, mr. speaker. that should have had a robust debate. and perhaps modification. but it was a plan that said to all americans, we're all going to have to be in this together. a balanced plan, mr. speaker,

to get a handle on the debt and deficit that confronts this country that is hurting our economy, hurting our people, hurting our credibility and s&p downgraded us not because, mr. speaker, we didn't have the resources to solve our problems. standard & poor's downgraded the united states of america for the first time in the lifetime of anybody i know and perhaps anybody in history because they didn't know whether we had the political will and courage to address this debt and deficit that confronts and puts our country in danger. mike mullens, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, mr. speaker, when asked what was the biggest security problem confronting america, didn't respond iraq, iran, didn't respond terrorists, didn't respond other enemies around the world. he said the biggest security concern that he had, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, was the fiscal challenge

that was not being addressed in america. . mr. speaker, we need to address it, i hope my friend the majority leader, and he and i worked together on a number of things, we worked on a number of things this session we passed in a bipartisan fashion, i would hope that he and i would both commit ourselves to during the lame duck session do our responsibility to america and to our constituents in reaching a bowles-simpson-domenici, gang of six, almost every economist that has spoken to this issue has said you need a balanced plan. and if we simply have sold our soul, mr. speaker, to grover norquist on asking people to

help bring this debt and deficit down, mr. speaker, we will not succeed. but if we summons the turge and the will to solve this problem, we can do it, mr. speaker. i'm hopeful that my friend, the majority leader, and i, will work together over the next number of weeks between now and november 6 to establish the preface for acting in the lame duck session in a responsible, cooperative, consensus seeking fashion to get this country on a fiscally sustainable, credible path. if we do that, if we do that, we could redeem this congress' performance. i hope we'll do that. i don't know whether the majority leader wants to make a comment or not. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i'm going to try and make sure that i don't bring on even more

because i know our colleagues are waiting to speak. i would say to the gentleman there is not immune knit on his side. the minority leader of the house, the president of the united states has not endorsed, the minority leader rejected bowles-simpson and the president has not endorsed bowles-simpson which is part of the issue the gentleman seeks some clarification on which is, where's the plan to get us out of this? anti-president was unwilling to even adopt that. but -- and the president was unwilling to even adopt that. the reason our side rejects bowles-simpson -- we bleve there are good things in bowles-simpson, i do look forward to working with the gentleman and seeing if we can work together, cooperative fashion, to get some results and resolve this cloud hanging over the economy. i'm looking forward to that. but bowles-simpson, number one, is not this so-called balanced approach unless you say, $1.22

in taxes, new taxes, with $1 in cuts, is balanced. we don't believe so. because we believe it has a detrimental impact on the growth of the economy. we also believe the bowles-simpson revenue target of 20% of g.d.p. is the highest target, and something that is ex-- exceeds that which we have been at pretty much over the last 70-some years for three years. we believe that is too much ofal revenue flow into washington for washington to make the decisions. we've got an issue there about the amount of taxes and the size of government. totally legitimate discussion point, yes, but an issue. it's not just rejection out of hand. like the minority leader and the president have said. they reject that. we say, this is why and then we also say the disproportionate

driver of the deficit is health care entitlements. the gentleman and i both agree upon that. how are we going to deal with this? bowles-simpson leaves in place the structural nature of those programs now and doesn't address the fundamental problem of growing unfunded liability. we want to solve that so that the safety net programs are there for the future and save them. that's our position. and so i do, i do look forward to working with the gentleman. there's some great things about tax reform in bowles-simpson. i want to work with the gentleman on that. and if we can't have a conversation about resolving the deficit and spending. so again i try not to invoke any more time, mr. speaker, and i yield back. million hoyer: i look forward to working with him as well, mr. speaker. because there is no more important issue that confronts us as a congress or us as people, and no act that we

could do would give more confidence not only to our own people but to people around the world that america has got its financial house in order. we need to do that. we can argue the specifics one way or the other. but, mr. speaker, we do have a difference. we had that difference in 1993 and we argued about it. we believe that we won that argument on the vote and we won it, in my opinion, on performance. we argued again on it in 2001 and 2003, and we believe we lost on that argument. which is why we were in the deepest recession at the last administration this country has been in my lifetime. i'm not one of the younger members of this body. but i am with the majority leader hopeful that we can work together and come to agreement on that on which we agree and move forward. the american people, i

>> will also talk that with the capitol hill reporter about what the senate will be doing next week. david is the national correspondent for the newspapers. senators spent the week tussling over a bill to created jobs corps program for veterans >> and they agreed on amendments and timing and they plan to vote on the nineteenth. they will take to days off for the jewish holiday and come back and nineteenth to begin writing this. >> who had objections to it? what were they concerned about? >> there were several reasons to stall. if you want be cynical view, republicans were not going to give democrats anything. democrats control the senate. the bill was meant to increase hiring and job training for

veterans, particularly those that served in afghanistan and iraq. part of the problem was the republican said, there are other things the government should be doing. they said, this is a political exercise and they don't necessarily need the government's health. senator paul was a real critic of this. he wanted to stop american aid to pakistan home until they helped the united states find osama bin laden. they appeared to reach an agreement and will vote on wednesday the nineteenth. >> the continuing resolution goes over to the senate now. what is the consensus on when he said it might get to it? >> they were talking about wednesday, thursday, friday of

next week. i want to go home and campaign. there probably won't be huge controversy over the six-month extension. there will be heated debate about how we have to stop the runaway spending and we have to do something about the debt and deficit but we will do it in march. >> what are some of the key items that will be left before the election? what absolutely has to be done? >> start with the bush era tax cuts from 2001-2003. they expire at the end of 2012. the income tax rate goes to 39.6 and there is a second-rate that kicks in the air. rates across the board go up. the obama administration like to keep current rates under 250,000 for families and 200,000 for

individuals. republicans say you don't raise taxes in the middle of an economic slump. it will be an enormous battle. it may not be resolved until may years eve. you have the sequester coming into effect in january. the automatic spending cuts that the white house will talk about on friday. there is a way out, and the way out is to fashion a budget plan that will avoid these cuts. will that happen? possibly. both sides are motivated for all kinds of reasons. what we will see is all kinds of very intense and serious late night-early morning confrontation is in mid the late december. >> national correspondent for mcclatchy newspapers, thank you for being here. >> the first of the presidential

debates, live on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. next, president obama and secretary of state clinton speak about the u.s. consulate attack in libya. then the republican vice presidential candidate paul ryan and michele -and talk >> tomorrow on washington journal, james kitfield with that reaction to american deaths in the arab world. we'll get the latest information on the chicago teachers strike. the president of the american association of editorial cartoonists and another talk about the impact on journalism. this is what the 7:00 eastern on

c-span. >> i think people will like to see how we are accomplishing views have shifted over the years. they want to see whether mitt romney in 1994 was campaigning against welfare reform or for abortion. people like to see how these politicians involved -- evoled. there is a gotcha element. this is incredibly interesting. ♪ >> i have tried to think why it is that he has changed so often. why he finds it difficult to come down on one side of an issue inside -- instead of putting on multiple size of an issue. >> does it help that there is

the governing barack? >> he is a hero of mine. >> the best way to describe it is the viral beating heart of the internet. >> more with bussfeed reporter sunday night at 8:00. president obama called the men who were killed in this week's u.s. consulate attack in libya patriots who served their country well. the president, vice president biden, secretary of state clinton and defense secretary panetta attended the transfer of remains for u.s. ambassador christopher stevens, a foreign service officer, and to former navy seals. this was at a torrid pace andrews. this is 35 minutes. -- this was at a joint base andrews. this is 35 minutes.

[no audio] [no audio]

♪ ♪

♪

♪

♪

>> let us pause for a moment of silence. let us pray. gracious god, on behalf of a grateful nation and in the presence of grieving family members and colleagues, we welcome home for the final time ambassador chris stevens, sean smith, glen doherty, and tyrone woods. we give you thanks for the lives and the service of these men who wanted nothing more than to make a difference in the lives of other people.

to bring justice and freedom to others, who possessed not only character and resolve, but courage and good will. we mourn their loss. bless the memories of these men through those who knew and loved them, especially their families, for whom we ask your comfort, your divine care, and your piece in this difficult time. on this occasion, we continue to pray for our nation and its leaders. we asked your blessing on all who served on the military and civilian. we pray for our nation's people. we pray for the defeat of the terror and evil that seems to plague our planet. we pray earnestly for peace. creator of all, let's like perpetual shine upon chris, sean, glen, and tyrone. amen. you may be seated. ladies and gentlemen, it is my

honor to present to you the secretary of state, hillary clinton. >> thank you very much, a chaplain. mr. president, mr. vice president, secretary panetta, family members, members of the state department family, ladies and gentlemen, today, we bring home four americans who gave their lives for our country and our values. to the families of our fallen colleagues, i offer our most heartfelt condolences and deepest gratitude.

sean smith joined the state department after six years in the air force. he was respected as an expert on technology by colleagues in baghdad, montreal, and the hague. he enrolled in correspondence courses at penn state and had high hopes for the future. sean leaves behind a loving wife, heather, two young children, and scores of grieving family, friends, and colleagues. that is just in this world.

online, in the virtual world that he helped to create, he is also being mourned by countless competitors, collaborators, and gamerse who shared his passion. tyrone woods, is known to most as rone, spent two decades as a navy seal, serving multiple tours in iraq and afghanistan. since 2010, he protected american diplomatic personnel in dangerous posts from central america to the middle east. he had the hands of a healer as well as the arms of a warrior.

earning distinction as a registered nurse and certified paramedic. our hearts go out to to his wife and his three sons. along with his grieving family, friends, and colleagues. glen doherty was also a former seal and an experienced paramedic. he died protecting his colleagues. he was employed to some of the most dangerous places on earth, including iraq and afghanistan, always putting his life on to safeguard other americans. our thoughts and prayers are with his father, his mother, his brother, and sister, and their grieving families, friends, and colleagues. i was honored to know ambassador chris stevens. i want to thank his parents and siblings who are here today for sharing chris with us and with their country. what a wonderful gift you gave us. over his distinguished career in the foreign service, he won friends to the united states in far-flung places. he made those people's hopes his own. during the revolution in libya, he risked his life to help protect the libyan people from a tyrant. he gave his life helping them build a better country. people loved to work with him.

as he rose through the ranks, they loved to work forehand. he was known not only for his courage, but for his smile. goofy, but contagious. for his sense of fun and that california cool. in the days since the attack, so many libyans, including the ambassador, who is with us today, have expressed their sorrow and solidarity. one young woman, her head covered and her eyes haunted with sadness, held up a handwritten sign that said "thugs and killers do not represent a benghazi or islam." the president of the palestinian authority, who worked closely with chris sent me a letter of remembering his energy and integrity and deploring "an act of ugly terror." many others from across the middle east and africa have offered similar sentiments. this has been a difficult week for the state department's and for our country. we have seen the heavy assault on our post in benghazi bad took lives of those brave men. we have seen rage and violence directed at american embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do it. it is hard for the american people to make sense of that because it is senseless. it is totally unacceptable.

the people of egypt, libya, yemen, and tunisia did not trade the tyranny of the dictator for the tyranny of a mob. reasonable people and responsible leaders in these countries need to do everything they can to restore security and hold accountable those behind these violent acts. we will, under the president's leadership, keep taking steps to protect our personnel around the world. there will be more difficult days ahead, but it is important that we do not decide of the fundamental fact that america must keep leading the world. we owe it to those four men to continue the long, hard work of diplomacy. i am enormously proud of the men and women of the state department.

i am proud of all those across our government, civilian and military ally, who represented erech of broad. -- who represent america abroad. if the last few days teach us anything, let it be this. this worked, and the men and women who risked their lives to do it, or at the heart of what makes america great and good. we will wipe away our tears, stiffen our spine, and face the future undaunted. and we will do it together.

protecting and helping one another, it just like sean, tyrone, glen, and chris always did. may god bless them and grant their families peace and solace. may god continue to bless the united states of america. let's we have a great honor of the injured -- let me have a great honor of introducing someone who came to the state department earlier this week to grieve with us. he understands and values the work that these men were doing for our country. the president of the united states.

>> the scripture teaches us greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. glen doherty never shied from adventure. he believed he could make a difference. he served with distinction in iraq and afghanistan. in benghazi, he laid down his life. today, glen is home.

tyrone woods devoted 20 years of his life to the seals. the quiet professional. rone also served in iraq and afghanistan. in benghazi, he was far from dorothy and tyrone jr. and he laid down his life, protecting his friends. today, he is home. sean smith lived to serve. first in the air force and then at the state department. he knew the dangers of this calling. in benghazi, he was far from home, and he laid down his life in service.

today, sean is home. chris stevens is everything america wants in an ambassador. he first went to the region as a young man in the peace corps during the revolution. he arrived in libya in a cargo ship. he believed in libya and its people and how they loved him back. in benghazi, he laid down his life for his friends, libyan and american, and for us all. today, chris is home. four americans, four patriots. they loved this country. they chose to serve it.

they served it well. they had a mission. they believe in it. they knew of the dangers. they accepted them. they did not simply increase the american ideals, but lived it. they embody it. they had courage. they have hope and the idealism, the fundamental american belief that we can leave this world a little better than before. that is who they were. that is who we are. if we want to honor their memory, that is who we must always be. i know that this awful loss of recent days has caused some to question this work.

there is no doubt these are very difficult days. in a moment such as this, there is a lot of anger, violence, even the most hopeful among us must wonder. amid all the images this week, i also think of the libyans who took to the streets with homemade signs and expressing their gratitude to an america that believed in what could be achieved together. think of the man in benghazi with a sign in english, a message he wanted all of us to hear, "chris stevens was a friend to all libyans. chris stevens was a friend." that was the message the patriots sent. civilian, military, people in

every corner of the world know that america is a friend. we care not only about our own country or our own interest, but also about theirs. the united states of america will never retreat from the world. will never stop working for the dignity and freedom that every person deserves, whatever their creed or faith. that is the essence of american leadership. this was their work in benghazi. this is the work that we will carry on. to you, their families, and colleagues, all americans, know

this -- their sacrifice will never be forgotten. we will bring to justice those who took them from us. we will stand fast against the violence on our diplomatic missions. we will continue to do everything in our power to protect american serving overseas, whether it meets increasing security at host countries and making it clear that justice will come to those who harm americans. most of all, even in our grief, we will be resolute. we are americans. we hold our heads high knowing that because of these patriots, because of you, this country that we love will always shine with the light unto the world. greater love hath no greater man than one who lays down his life for his friends.

god bless the men who laid down their lives for us all. may god watch over your families and all who love them. may god bless the united states of america. >> before the benediction, we will play the national anthem as we render honor to the men who died.

[drums rolling] ♪ [playing "star spangled banner"]

>> mighty god, creator of us all

and lover of the human race we commend to you our brothers into your merciful hands to receive them. to lure them for all fear. strengthen them in your presence. given your pc. -- peace. amen. [america the beautiful playing]

♪

♪ >> in less than three weeks, the first of the presidential debates will be live on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. republican vice presidential vice-president paul ryan and michelle bachman speak at the value of voter conference. an analysis of the 2012 presidential campaign. >> kentucky congressman harold waters -- rogers talks about the

appropriations process and what of congress may do during the wind duck sessions. "newsmakers," on c-span. >> let's look at what the a man of secretion -- at what the a emancipation proclamation says. it frees and slaves and those people in states in rebellion on january 1, 1866. it does not free everybody, just those states were part of state still in rebellion. there are several parishes in louisiana where slavery still exists because the union army does not have control over that area. parts of virginia where the union army has a foothold, savory still exists -- slavery still exists. >> this weekend on american

history tv, but never green and other authors and historians take your questions on the battle and repercussions of the single bloodiest day of fighting in american history. sunday, live from antietam national battlefield. republican vice presidential candidate paul ryan speaks at the family research council's and will values voter sentiment. he is introduced by the former reagan education secretary. also speaking is michelle bachman. this is about one hour and 10 minutes. c-[captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> bill bennett rates and our evaluation forms as among our favorites. we are delighted to have him come. he will be introducing our vice presidential candidate, paul ryan afterward. [applause] let me mention a couple of things about this great man. he has written for many of america's leading newspapers and magazines and appeared on many of the nation's most temperamental television shows. he has written and edited 16 books, two of which, "the book of virtues," and "the children's book of virtues," but one of the most successful in the decade. he is well known as a republican. he has often cross party lines to pursue important common purposes. he has worked closely with

democratic leaders to fight for our culture against the decline of popular culture and to end world wide and religious persecution. thank you to bill bennett's brilliant mind, his writings and speeches, he has an influence on america's political and social landscape. we you give a great, warm welcome to dr. bill bennett? [applause] ♪ >> no, i am not paul ryan or was meant to be. he was my intern. [applause] [laughter] be mindful how you treat your

staff. they may grow up to be vice- president of the united states of america. it is great to be here. it is great to be here with you. they said that lincoln read only to book -- the bible and shakespeare. for reasons that i have told you about before, i am a pretty well-known catholic. i will not instruct this audience on the bible. there may be -- there may not be a priest in the room. and read it on your own. that is a joke. that is fine. my text today is the macbeth, act four, scene 3. our country sinks beneath the low. it weeks -- it weeps and belize. each new day, a gas is added to her wounds. what are those wounds?

the men and women here before me know this better than i do. the employment rate is above 8% for 43 months. the unemployment rate 1 barack obama took office was 7.8%. the labor force is shrinking to record lows. people are giving up looking for work, especially men. the august participation rate in the labor force for men was below 70%. that is the lowest other on record. -- ever on record. median household income has declined more than $4,000. half of recent college graduates are underemployed or on a -- under employed. more people are on the stands and ever. that is almost 50 million. poverty is at the highest number we have ever seen since the census bureau began keeping track. 46.2 million people.

black unemployment is near record highs, 14%. these are-yes that will not be forgiven -- these would not be forgiven by others if they were in charge. you can be sure of that. as a mitt romney said in a very smart appearance in a good speech -- [applause] yes. if i am president job one will be creating jobs. i have no hidden agenda. if you want a president that will make things better for the african-americans, you are looking at it. it could for mitt romney. [applause] make beth says the country sinks beneath the yoke. that is the yoke of debt.

today the debt is more than $16 trillion. that is heavy. sooner or later, that debt will sink us. the burden in the debt are more than economic. you did not invite me here to talk about economics. it is culture. cultural and spiritual and moral that troubles us. it is not about our money. it is about our more routes as a nation. there is a sense that we in america are heading down. the shining city on the hill is growing dim. 57% of americans believe that we are in decline as a civilization. think about that. more americans than not think we are in decline as a

civilization. the lot -- it has been a long story of human history. the american achievement is high. it is unique. most of us today think it may be ending. is this what has happened to us? if so, this loss of morale is the worst and this president has ever done to was. he has dumped our national morale and pride. i worked for president ronald wilson reagan, who raised the -- [applause] the economy, steer them the soviet union, and lifted morale. reagan was the captain of the

ship who took the wheel of stormy seas and, the passengers and the seas. the opposite has been done in the tenure of this presidency. they give me no pleasure to say so. what is this? why is this tax what does this? where does this come from? 64% of americans believe we are on the wrong track. for those 64%, if they would vote on track -- [applause] some tell us things are getting better. if things are getting better, why are people feeling so bad? if people are saying things are better, why are not things better? they are not will tell you another reason why today the

country we stand and beliefs -- weeps and bleeds for man who bled and was killed and brutalized by a fanatic mob and benghazi. the reaction of our leadership was not anger, very, not a swift sword but to the bleeding, the solder the spectacle that was bleating a sheep this statement of weakness and wondering aloud by the secretary of state and others whether our own freedoms go just a bit too far. a muslim imam brutalizes and murders an american ambassador, a representative of the united states of america to disgrace him into disgrace us, they would

murder and brutalize us to. when our government relax, it does so by shuttering and shaking and wondering that the consequences of our first amendment. it blames a fool of a filmmaker with a poultry influence for the benham unleashed in other parts of the world. god help us. that is another line and macbeth. he thinks that i hear a voice. me thinks i hear a couple of voices. in the midst of this there was a voice, one of mitt romney. he did not hesitate. he thundered this. i am outraged by the attacks on american diplomatic officials.

it is disgraceful. the obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks. that was from mitt romney. [applause] what ever timing and whirring or parsing one may want to bring up may 1, 2001 to suggest as an improvement on his remarks, his words had a shock effect. they had the shock effect because they were true.

when they are content so broadly, so almost universally among the establishment press it is likely that they are true. these were true for another reason. what he said we will read again. i am out rates by the attacks. it is disgraceful. the obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks but to sympathize with those who wage the attacks. mr. romney was talking about this attack. he was talking about other things as well. he was talking about a history. his words had a shock effect because in addition to being

true, they were an unveiling, a revelation, a stripping away, a showing that belief and sentiment that now animates leadership in america. where do we stand with this part of the world? where do we stand with muslims who would do this to us? where do we stand with a country that hesitate to respond? is it in ally? is it not an ally? the answer is unclear. much of the press jumped in on romney to kill this truth in the womb, some think it is well- practiced at. [applause] with that revelation and the truth, it will not die, were so i hope. the message was received. i heard it on my radio show.

i heard it from me earlier. that was done so important. i heard it from my audience. from outside of the precincts, the normal suspects in the grip of the new intelligence sierra and the politically correct. the places i call defined by advance attitudes and professed moral and intellectual smallest -- smugness. it was heard in texas. [applause] when ted cruz was on my show, he said there is a new wind , bill. there is a new country. we will take back our country and our values and freedom.

i said where are you talking from? he said texas. i said, well, i know it is true in texas. i want it to be true everywhere else. as california loses the business it is losing to texas, they may figure it out. [applause] otherwise they will be the lindsay lohan of states. [laughter] just cannot figure it out. just cannot figure it out. what did i do wrong again? the message romney gave was heard. it was heard and it was repeated. it was echoed. it was approved. the american people applauded it. god help it to be seen and heard

elsewhere, and ohio, colorado. [applause] in iowa, and in virginia. and every warehouse -- and everywhere else and and the land of wisconsin. [applause] this brings me to wisconsin. are you ready? [applause] get out of the way, bennett. it is like those commencements. parents want to be sure the degree is in the hand of that child. get that man of the program. get on with this day. paul ryan -- [applause]

i was ushered out of the room because paul ryan need to do an interview. i said, do you know -- oh, never mind. paul ryan tells me in a text about two weeks ago that his job once us to carry my coffee and copies of the book and the other hand. [laughter] now i go around bragging, hey, i know paul ryan. if there is any carrying to be done in case you think i am too old for it, and i am not, i was in texas debating chris matthews. i am not too old for this. i am getting better.

my doctor said i am getting short. if there is any carrying to be done, in case she thing i am too old, i will carry your jacket. i will carry your books in your coffee while you take it to them, mr. chairman. he did work for me and jack .emp, i cannot help but. we are friends. we have stood on the top of 14- foot piece together. i got the three hours after he

did. [applause] but, i got there. when i got there, the mountain view it had been climbed. my younger son was 14. paul asked him to go on a hike in colorado. my son asked if we were going on a trail? quote -- paul said we urges going straight. my 14-year-old was gasping. he decided he would do better next time. he had the chance that summer in colorado. joe bennett is a prince sent graduate and a second lieutenant in the u.s. marine corps. thank you very much. [applause] stayed with him. so did paul's father-in-law, who runs the caps fund and paul's

brother-in-law who is an iron man. i -- [applause] stay at base camp in case -- [applause] in case there is trouble. [laughter] no, i went behind slowly. paul suggested we had together. i said i know the resonates in this crowd. you have got to be kidding. they went way ahead. they all stay together. i stayed behind them. damning with the new-found humility. a guy passed the on the trail and said, you look familiar. are you somebody? i used to be. [laughter] not anymore. i heard paul ryan is up here. i said he is about 3 miles ahead. [laughter] we have come to know and love each other's families in this way and other ways.

i admire him very much. i admire his faith, carriage, plucking this, his sense of humor, and his well grounded sense of self. i gave him a big hug. he has not changed a bit. he knows what he stands for. what heime, he know will not stand for. [applause]

these two, romney and ryan, will not fail. paul ryan. [cheers and applause] >> hey, everybody. how about this guy, huh? man. thank you so much. wow. let's hear it for bill bennett! thank you so much. when bill bennett has climbed a mountain, the mountain knows

that it has been climbed. he and i go back a long way. you know, i lost my dad when i was a young guy. i went through life with really important mentors. none were more important than that man you have just heard from, bill bennett. [applause] [person yelling] >> thank you so much. i appreciate your support. thank you. thank you. [croutchanding u.s.a.! ] >> it is good to be here.

>> it isreysñë c1n here. it is good to be part of a values voter summit once again. and this time, i bring greetings from the next president of the united states, governor mitt romney! [cheers and applause] in this election, millions of americans count themselves as value voters. i'm a value voter, too. in 53 days we have a choice between two very different

ideas about our country. how we were meant to live, and what we were meant to be. it is the kind of choice that can never be taken for granted. peace, freedom, and civilized values have enemies in this world. as we have been reminded by events in egypt, libya, and yemen. we have all seen the images of our flag being burned and our enemies under attack by vicious mobs. the worst of it is the loss of four good men, including our ambassador to libya. they were there for the most peaceful purposes in service to our country. and today our country honors their lives and greeves with -- and grieves with their families. [applause] all of us are watching events closely. we know who america is dealing with in these attacks. they are extremists who operate by violence and intimidation.

the least equivocation only makes them bolder. look across that area. what do we see? the slaughter of brave dissidents in syria. mobs storming american embassies and consulates. iran four years closer to getting a nuclear weapon. israel, our best ally in the region, treated with indifference bordering on contempt by the obama administration. [applause] amid all these threats and dangers, what we do not see is steady, consistent american leadership. in the days ahead and in the years ahead, american foreign policy needs moral clarity and firmness of purpose. [applause] only by the competent exercise of american influence are evil and violence overcome.

that is how we keep problems abroad from becoming crises. that is what keeps the peace. that is what we will have in a romney-ryan administration. [cheers and applause] in the all important election of 2012, values voters are also economic voters. this election we'll hold the incumbent accountable for his decisions. it is true that president obama had a lot of problems not of his own making. but he also came in with one party rule and a chance to do everything of his own choosing. the obama economic agenda failed not because it was stopped but because it was passed. [cheers and applause]

that's a key distinction. [applause] and here is what we got. prolonged joblessness across the country. 23 million americans struggling to find work. family income in decline. 15% of americans living in poverty. the record is so uniformly bad, that maybe you noticed something. president obama himself almost never even uses the word "record." that is, except, when he's trying to trade on the record of bill clinton. in his conventional speech, the president never said that simple word, "record." he didn't say the other word "stimulus" either. because he wasted $831 billion of borrowed money. at a time of mass unemployment,

he didn't even say "unemployment." because we're in the slowest recovery since the great depression. by the way, he didn't even use the word recovery either. never mind that recovery was what all americans expected from barack obama. you see, he wants us to forget all of these things. and lately, he's been trying out a new tactic. it is the classic barack obama strawman. if anyone dares point out the facts of his record, why they are being negative and pessimistic about the country. the new straw man is people hoping for the decline of america. you know, it is pretty sad, but this is the closest president obama can come these days to sounding positive himself. but we have to face up to all that has gone wrong these past four years so that the next four years can be better. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, we cannot

afford to make economic failure a two-term proposition! [cheers and applause] you know lately the president has been trying out sports comparisons. he compares the fourth year of his term to the fourth quarter of a basketball game. you can expect more of this. because if there is one thing the man can do, it's talk a good game. the only problem is, the clock is running out, and he still hasn't put any points on the board. [applause] his whole case these days is basically asking us to forget what he promised us four years ago and focus instead on his new promises. that's a fast move to get around accountability.

and now he asks as if it is unfair to measure his performance against his own words. but here's the question, if barack obama's promises weren't good then, what good are they now? if we renew the contract, we're going to get the same deal. if we renew the contract, we'll get the same deal, with only one difference. in a second term, he will never answer to you again. in so many ways, starting with obama care, re-electing this president would set in motion things that can never be called back. it would be a choice to give up so many other choices. when all the mandates of government-run health care comes down, the last thing the regulators

will want to hear is your opinion. when the obama tax increases start coming, nobody in washington is going to ask whether you can afford them or not. when all the new borrowing brings our national debt to $20 trillion and then $25 trillion, nobody is going to ask you about the debt crisis or even help you prepare for it. but we the people need to think ahead. even if our current president will not, in order to avoid the crisis while there is still time. everyone knows that president obama inherited a bad economy. four months from now, when mitt romney is sworn in as president, he will inherit a bad economy. but here's the difference. when a romney run administration takes office, we will also take responsibility. [cheers and applause] instead of dividing up the

wealth, our new president will get america creating wealth again. [cheers and applause] we're going to revive free enterprise in this country to get our economy growing faster and to get our people back to work. [cheers and applause] on the path that this president has set, by the time my kids are my age, the federal government will be far bigger and more powerful even than it is today. at that point, this land of free men and women will have become something it was never intended to be. we are expected to meekly submit to the state. but i have a different idea, and i'm betting most americans share it. i want my children to make their decisions to define happiness for themselves and use the gifts their god gave them and live their lives in freedom!

[cheers and applause] that's the american idea. [cheers and applause] you know, you say things like this and our opponents will quickly oppose you of being, quote, "anti-government." president obama frames the debate this way. because here again, it is the only kind of debate he can win against straw man arguments of -- arguments. no politician is more skilled -- [crowd chanting "u.s.a."]

[cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] we all know this. no politician is more skilled at striking heroic poses against imaginary adversaries. nobody is better at rebuking non existant opinions. barack obama does this all the time. in this election, we are going to call him on it. [applause] the president is given to lectures on all that we owe to government, as if anyone -- who

uses rampant government power. he treats private enterprise as a revenue source for government. he used government as the recontribute tore -- redistributor and allocator of opportunity. the results are in for that, too. here we are, four years under economic stewardship under these self-proclaimed advocates of the poor, and what do they have to show for it? more people in poverty! after four years of dividing people up with a bogus rhetoric of class warfare, just about every segment of society is worse off. to see this played out in any country would be bad enough. to see it becoming the daily experience of life in the united states is utterly contrary to everything we are entitled to expect. mitt romney knows that this country is made for better things.

to borrow the words of another mentor of mine, jack kemp -- [applause] i had to do that for dr. bennett. mit and i understand that no government in history has been able to do for people what they were able to do for themselves when they were free to follow their hopes and their dreams. [applause] under the current president, we are at risk of becoming a poor country. he looks to government as the great benefactor in every life. our opponents even have a new motto. they say, quote, "government is the only thing that we all belong to." i don't know about you, but i never thought of government as something that i belong to.

as a matter of fact,of the seven times i have been sworn to congress, i have never taken an oath to the government. the oath that all of us take is to support and defend the constitution of the united states under which government is limited and the people are sovereign! that's what we do, that's who we are! [cheers and applause] in the experience of real life, the most important things we belong to, they have a very different hold on us. i'm catholic. not because anyone has ordered

me to accept a creed, but because of the grace and truth revealed in my faith. and that's how we all feel about the faith that we hold. in the same way, we americans give ourselves to every kind of good cause. we do this for the simple reason that our hearts and conscience want to fill a place that someone else cannot fill. it is like that way in communities, too. the whole life of this nation is carried forward every day by the endless unselfish things people do for one another, without giving it much thought. in books, they call this civil society. in my own experience, i know it as -- as jainsville, wisconsin. -- janesville, wisconsin. [applause]

janesville is a place like 10,000 others, where a lot of good happens without government demanding it, claiming it, or taking credit for it. that is how life is supposed to work in a free country. [cheers and applause] and nothing undermines the essential work of government more than the abuse of government power. in barack obama's telling, government is a bigbenevolent presence guiding our steps at every turn. in reality, when government enters the picture, private institutions are so often brushed aside with suspicion or even contempt. this is what happened to the catholic church and catholic charities this past january when the new mandates of obama care started coming. never mind your own conscience, they were basically told, and from now on, you are going to do things the government's way. ladies and gentlemen, you would be hard-pressed to find

another group in america that does more to serve the help of women and their babies than the catholic church and catholic charities. [cheers and applause] and now, suddenly, we have obama care bureaucrats presuming to dictate how they are going to do it. as governor romney has said, this mandate is not a threat and insult to one religious group, it is a threat and insult to every religious group. he and i will stand with you as concerned citizens in defense of our religious liberties. i can assure you, when mitt romney is elected we will get to

work on day one to repeal that mandate and all of obama care! [cheers and applause] finally, when he tries to make big government sound reasonable and inclusive, the president likes to say, we're all in this together. here, too, he has another handy straw man. anyone who questions the wisdom of his policies must be lacking in compassion. who else would question him but those mean people who think that everybody has to go it alone and fend for themselves. we're all in this together. has a nice ring. for everyone who loves this country, it is not only true, but obvious. yet how it sounds coming from a politician who has never

-- yet how hallow it sounds coming from a politician who has never once lifted a hand to defend the most helpless and innocent of all human beings, the child waiting to be born. [cheers and applause] giving up any further pretense of moderation on this issue and in complete disregard from millions of prolife democrats, president obama has chosen to pander to the most extreme elements of his party. in the clinton administration, the stated goal was to make abortion safe, legal, and rare. but that was a different time and a different president. now apparently, the biden-obama

ticket stands for a qualified right to abortion at any time, in any circumstance, and even at taxpayer expense. when you get past all the president's straw men, what we believe is plain to state. these vital questions should be decided not by the caprice of unelected judges, but by the conscience of the people and their elected representatives. [cheers and applause] and in this good hearted country, we believe in showing compassion for mother and father alike. we don't write anyone off in america. especially those without a voice. every child has a place and purpose in this world. everyone counts. and in a just society, the law should stand on the side of

life. [cheers and applause] so much of our history has been a constant striving to live up to the ideals of our founding about rights and their ultimate source. at our opponents' do not convention, a rowdy dispute broke out over the mere mention of that source. for most of us, it was settled long ago that our rights come from nature and nature's god, not from government. [cheers and applause] it is very clear, that's the american idea. a disregard for rights, a growing government, and a static economy.

a country where everything is free but us. this is where it is all headed. this is where we are being taken by the present administration. this is the road we are on. but my friends, that road has an exit just ahead, and it is marked tuesday, november 6, 2012! [cheers and applause] we can be confident in the rightness of our cause and also in the integrity and the readiness of the man who leads it. he is a solid and trustworthy, faithful and honorable man. not only a defender of marriage, he offers an example of marriage at its best. not only a fine businessman, he's a fine man. worthy of leading our

country. and ready to lead the great turn around that we have spent four years waiting for. you know, i'm not the only one who has told mit that maybe he needs to talk more about himself and his life. it wouldn't hurt if voters knew more about those little things that reveal a man's heart and his character. this is a guy who at the height of his successful business, turned the entire company into a search and rescue operation the moment he heard that a colleague's young daughter was missing. he is a man that could easily contented himself by giving money to needy causes. but everyone will tell you, mitt has always given himself. he is not just someone who oversees good works, but mitt does the work. mitt romney is the type that we

have all run into in our own community. the man that is always there right away when there is need, but never first in line when praise and credit are being handed out. he's a modest man with a charitable heart. he's a doer and a promise keeper. he's the kind of person every community could use more of. and he'll be thkind of president who brings out the best in our country. [cheers and applause] when he asked me to join the ticket, i told governor romney, let's get this done. [cheers and applause] that's been my message ever since, and now i'm asking all of you to do the same. we know what we are up against. we know how desperate our opponents are to cling to power, but

we are ready. i hope you are, too, because i know that we can do this. whatever your critical party, let's come together for the sake of our country. let's put these devicive years behind us, let's give this effort everything we have. let's get this done and elect mitt romney the next president of the united states! [cheers and applause] thank you everybody, and god bless you. thank you very much. thank you. appreciate it. thank you. [cheers and applause] ♪ >> wasn't it great to see the boy scouts of america this morning provide our colors and our pledge? [cheers and applause] true story. back when america was coming out of its depression and naziism was overtaking europe, the world was a crazy place. it was during that time that the most popular radio singer, called radio star, for that matter, decided she would want

to change the mood of america. so kate smith went to her friend, irving berlin, and said i want you to write a song that would not only inspire patriotism in america, but would renew their faith in god. he said, you know, i wrote a song about 20 years ago, but i never recorded it. so he got out of the drawer and played for her the very first time, a song called "god bless america." she was so overwhelmed, she said i would love to sing this song. but i can't take royalties for this. this should be a gift to america. so kate smith and irving berlin decided if there should be any royalties that comes out of "god bless america" it should go to the boy scouts of america. [applause] isn't that great? and now you are glad you came, because you didn't know that, did you? our next speaker coming down to

the podium is a true constitutional conservative who practices what she preaches, especially in the areas of tax reform, wasteful government spending, reducing our national debt, and repealing obama care. [cheers and applause] she is the first republican woman to be elected -- represent minnesota in the house of representatives of representatives, and the first republican woman to run for president of the united states. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome michele bachmann! [cheers and applause] ♪

>> god bless you. what a wonderful morning. good morning. thank you for that warm introduction. it is always an honor and a thrill to be back at the values voter summit. i want to thank tony perkins, the great people at f.r. c. before i start, i want to say a word about this concept you have heard about called "the war on women," the so-called war on women. i want to say it has about as much reliability and truthfulness as bill clinton's arithmetic. but this week, as we have seen to our horror, there is a very real war that is going on across the world, and that's what i want to take my few moments together that we have this morning. i sit on the intelligence committee. we deal with the nation's classified secrets, and this is a very real issue. and as we survey the political landscape today, it feels like it is deja vu all over again.

because we are seeing struggles all across the middle east. we're seeing attacks on our embassy, in a way that we saw in the late 1970's. staggering unemployment. you would almost think jimmy carter is back in the white house again, wouldn't you? only what we see is we are again desperate for another ronald reagan. [applause] >> this time i'm sorry to say is even worse. the fires of radical islamic traditionalism is not just limited to one country, they are currently raging all across africa and all across asia. each week our christian brothers and sisters, from nigeria to kenya are being persecuted. when they go to church they do not even know if they will make it home after wards. now the violence has come to us,

the united states. and on the anniversary of 9/11, no less, our u.s. ambassador lost their lives in a cruel, cold-blooded, gruesome terrorist attack. all the while this administration has communicated both weakness and lack of resolve to the world! [applause] and apparently convinced, the only way to survive this crisis is to put a contract on the free speech rights of american citizens. i want to be perfectly clear, this isn't just about a movie. this was an intentional act that

was done by radical islamists who seek to impose their set of beliefs on the rest of the world, and we will not stand for it! [cheers and applause] no one here is suggesting that all muslims are radical, but we should not be ignorant of the objective reality that there is a very radical wing of islam dedicated to the destruction of america, of israel, and of israel's allies. what we're watching develop before our eyes today is this administration's policy of apeasment across the globe and the supposed success of the president's foreign policy genius hailed by the media even last week is now exposed for

what it really is. so now you see this media doing absolutely everything they can to stram scramble to make sure that their guy doesn't get the blame for what's going down this week. it is important to highlight what got us to this point. this doesn't happen out of nowhere. this does go back to the very beginning of the obama administration. the very first television appearance the president gave was with the foreign arabic network al arabia where he promised he would provide middle east peace in our time. then president obama went on his first trip to cairo and he spurned our long-time ally egyptian hosni mubarak and attended the speech of a man who was outlawed at that time, and he gave him front row seats to

his speech. now, when you hear the muslim brotherhood's mission statement, i think you will understand why former president mubarak or anyone would want to stop the violent muslim brotherhood. this is their motto. it is a political entity. "allah is our objective. the profit is our leader. jihad is our way. dying in the way of allah is our highest hope." recently the newly elected muslim brother president even said, quote, jeruslem shall be our capital, allah willing." i want to be perfectly clear this morning. even though the democrats had a little trouble with this last week in charlotte, north carolina, the undivided city of jeruslem is not now, nor will it ever be, anything other than the

eternal capital of israel! [cheers and applause] another factor in understanding this administration's policy of apeasment is its relationship with an organization you may not have heard of before, one of the largest most powerful organizations in the world, and you should know its name. it is called the organization for islamic cooperation. o.i.c. so far it has gone virtually unnoticed. who are they? the o.i.c. is the second largest intergovernmental organization in the world after the united nations. the o.i.c. claims they have authority to represent all muslims, even those who live in

nonmuslim countries like the united states. in 2005 this very influential islamic organization published a 10-year plan of action. in 2005, to implement a sharia based speech code worldwide. listen very carefully to what i'm telling you right now. it explains this week. they had a 10-year plan of action to implement their sharia based islamic code worldwide. don't take my word for it. they published this plan on their web side in english, so no one would miss their intent. they will deem illegal any speech they deem insulting to islam, even in countries like the united states. that, my friends, explains the story of this week. islamic imposed speech code.

no one, not muslims, not nonmuslims, not americans are allowed to say anything islamists see as insulting to their religion. they intend to force us to kiss our freedom of speech and religion good-bye, and that's why we're being forewarned today. [applause] unbelievably, last september they succeeded with both obama's and clinton's help because they pushed the passage of u.n. resolution 1618 which called upon all countries to enact laws preventing derogatory references to islam. a clear violation of our first amendment freedom of speech. and even before that in october, last october, many prominent islamic organizations wrote a letter to the white house where they urged our white house to do

a complete perjury of any -- purge of any federal training of references to the ideology of islam, to ensure that our trainers in the u.s. security, that the f.b.i., and other u.s. agencies would be retrained so they would be brainwashed in political correctness for islam. that's enforced islamic speech code here in the united states. and all done with the help of our president and secretary of state. it took only days for the obama administration to reply to this demand letter from the slammists promising to set -- from the islammists promising to set up a task force to immediately begin a purge of our counterterrorism training in every federal agency across the board. it has never been done before. but when members of congress, myself included, started to ask questions about the eye

identities of who these people were who were leading this purge in our government and what it was they were purging from our training ters, the obama administration told us, the information was class identified. we could not know who was behind it. i'm here to say, my friends, that we are now today very late in the game. we're quickly losing our sense of who we are as a nation and we are losing our ability to identify our radical islamist enemy. the time has come to stand unashamedly this week for our freedom and our values and draw an unmis-- unmistakeable red line for our enemies across the world. [cheers and applause] in light of the attacks this week on our embassy in cairo, we need to tell the muslim

brotherhood controlled government in egypt, if you continue to enflame sentiments against the united states, we will immediately put an end to the united states taxpayer gravy train that we're sending your way. [cheers and applause] starting with the $1.5 billion we spend in egyptian aid and the $1 billion loan forgiveness program $5 billion international monetary fund loan program we are backing. we also need to stop the upcoming state visit that president obama agreed to, to welcome egyptian president into the white house, and we need to cancel the planned joint military exercises that we have recently planned with the egyptian military. secretary clinton and napaletano

need toll -- cease granting visas to members of u.s. designated foreign terrorist organizations. we're granting them visas so they can be escorted to -- through the front doors of the white house to meet with our security staff where upon they are demanding the release of the leaders of the islammist organization including the sheek, the master -- shiek, the mastermind of the world trade center bombings. you would think this was a novel you are reading, not reality. if president obama wants to get his priorities straight, he needs to cancel his meeting with david letterman, cancel his meeting with beyonce, cancel his meeting with jayzee, and instead agree to meet with the prime

minister of israel, benjamin netanyahu! [cheers and applause] because, you see, america and israel have a commonality of interest. too much blood has been shed, too many lives have been given to sacrifice our freedom of speech and freedom of religion and what we stand for here in the united states. our forefathers sacrificed so much for us. we owe it to them. we owe it to our posterity to continue to stand for liberty, justice, righteousness, for truth. and as we consider our way forward, we should remember the voices of history. don't forget, "if you know your enemy and you know yourself, you will fear 100 battles."

sung su. but this administration has virtually -- at every turn, the president seems insistent on apologizing for who we are as americans. now, i'm no master war strategist, but i do know enough that when we refuse to acknowledge who the enemy is and what he believes and when we shame americans for standing up for who we are, then president obama is following a strategy of complete defeat. this is not a battle for america. we learned in the first international war we faced as a new country that appeasement doesn't work. it was in the early days of the american republic when our government was busy paying extortion bribes also to people in north africa and the barbery states trying to stop them from attacking our ships and taking our people to become their slaves. and even as we were paying

extortion bribes to the barbery states, only one-sixth of our u.s. budget at that time was going to pay these extortion bribes. then along came thomas jefferson, the first democrat president, in 1801, and he decided, we're going to end this policy of appeasement. he wrote, and i quote, "i know nothing will stop the internal increase of demands from these pirates but the presence of an armed force, and it will be more economical and more honorable to use the same means at one for suppressing their insolency." so he built a navy and he deployed that navy to the enemy. our troops were victorious, and the message was clear. we will not tolerate attacks on our citizens or our sovereignty, and you do so at your own peril. [cheers and applause]

it was thomas jefferson's policy of strength and determination in complete contrast to the policies of the obama administration of apology and appeasement that has been our american tradition of foreign policy. and all political parties, democrats and republicans, ever since. where has that american spirit gone? where are the william barett-travise. s of the al mow that said here -- of the alamo who said here and no further? where are the shermans, patons who understands that victory is the only answer in war because they understood the meaning of defeat. in a speech to the cadets at west point, he told those young warriors, the long gray line has never failed us.

were you to do so, a million ghosts in olive drab and brown khaki and blue and gray would rise from their white crosses thundering those magic words, duty, honor, country. friends, we live in desperate times where we need to come together as americans remembering this gift of freedom and liberty given to those who have gone -- given to us from those who have gone before. we need to relive those words echoed to us through history. through history, duty, honor, and through country. so let's make sure that with everything that's in us, we lay it on the line in the next 50 days. because it is my belief and my opinion that barack obama has been the most dangerous president we have ever had on american foreign policy.

[applause] and we cannot sustain another four years of jimmy carter-like policy. because you see, the future belongs where? all you need to do is look in front of you? look at your hand. i look at my own. this is it. it is our hands that will determine the future. it is our hands that will determine if it is honor, duty, country. now is ours. i believe we are worthy of the task and nothing but the memory of the fallen should guide us. god bless us now. god bless us in the future. god bless us in this important moment when we make our decision about the future of our nation. god bless us all. and in his mighty name we pray. we bless the united states of

america. [cheers and applause] >> in less than two weeks, the first of the presidential debates live on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. watch and engage. >> next, an analysis of the 2012 campaign. then a look at next week's u.s. house agenda. after that, a discussion on the ratification of the recent events in the middle east. >> i started by saying, let us be cautiously optimistic. something is happening which is great. what i call in the book "the awakening." the awakening is the awakening of the arab mind and the intellectual revolution. yes, it is possible to get rid of dictators. it is possible to change

countries. this is something that's a legacy, a shift which feels very promising for now and for the future. >> oxford university islamic professor tariq ramadan talks about the arab spring this sunday on c-span2's booktv. >> "boston globe" reporters and political analysts discuss the final two months of the presidential campaign. the state of the race coming out of the conventions, and what the two candidates will need to do in the coming months in order to win. the globe's executive editor moderated thursday's discussion.

>> for our members, a gentle reminder that the end of our fiscal year is in two weeks. if you would like to contribute to the animal fund, if it is hard to say no to jimmy. if you get near him, you might end up giving. this collaboration with the

"boston globe" tonight for the entire season. we are so pleased that peter was able to pull this together. i think when he first spoke to monica about it, he asked me what date would be good, and he said, what about the night before the election? they thought that might be a little extreme. i also want to tell you, following the election, we are going to reconvene and tell you about the results of the election in the same way. >> peter, we don't talk about you individually enough except to say that you are the editor of the editorial column at the "boston globe." but peter went to japan, and then he went to columbia to get a law degree. he spent a brief time in washington and then he came back to boston, which is home, in 2009.

he, again, a wonderful colleague and collaborator. and i now turn my mic over to him. >> i'll see if my mic is working. thank you. thank you. thank you very much. a special thanks also to monica higgins who put together all of these wonderful events. i too want to welcome all these people who came for the insider program, and also to the athenaeum members and family faces in the audience. as some of you can see, we are taping tonight, so for the question and answer period, people will be asked to write their questions on a piece of paper, and there will be people here who can collect them and hand them out. so raise your hands and we can get your questions that way. what we were hoping to do tonight now that the democratic and republican conventions are over. i was there at both of them. a couple of you guys were there, too.

is have a discussion about where the state of the presidential election is now. some of you may have joined us when we had a discussion with a different group of panelists during the primaries, talking about mitt romney and some of the other republicans that were running. now governor romney is the republican nba.com any. he had depsh republican nominee. he had his debut at the republican national convention in florida. it is a good time to take stock. i want to introduce our panelists. i am grateful to have mike grunwald. mike is the author of a new book, the new, new deal. mike grunwald and sasha eisenberg both have affiliations with other organizes that we don't need to mention, but some of them will be familiar names

for you covering politics, and in my case covering many, many other things. mike now works with "time" magazine where he is one of their major national writers. he writes cover stories all the time. his book, the new, new deal, which is his second book is wammed. it is about the evergladse, a non-political book, but really the definitive text. the new book, the new, new deal is a really in-depth look at obama's stimulus bill, how it changed the way we lived. sasha eisenberg is also a former -- a book writer as well. he wrote his first book "the sushi economy" about the interconnectedness of the global economy as seen through the rise of sushi and how this japanese

delicasy is kind of taking over the world. and sasha now writes and works on books. his latest book, which is just out this week, "the victory lab" is about the use of social science research and how campaigns target individuals through social science research. how this is a new way of identifying voter interest. and our final panelist is i think someone you all know. charlie baker was the republican candidate for governor the last election, 2010, but before that, had a distinguished career as probably the foremost expert on state budget but also a leader in health care, hartford organization, turning that around. and probably no one is better situated to talk about obama care than charlie. i'm grateful, charlie, you could join us. i wanted to have a discussion

here. i know politics can sometimes seem a little point and counter pointy. no one is representing either of the campaigns, as far as i know. so what i did, i took down some of the memorable quotes from the conventions and i -- i know some of you weren't necessarily rapt before your tv at that time. this is a clip from paul ryan's speech talking about the stimulus. he said it went to companies like cilindra with their gold-plated deals. it was a case of political pat -- patronage and cronyism at its worst.

that's paul ryan. you kn [captions performed by national captioning institute] [captions performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> the only thing that came up about solyndra is -- it is mitch mcconnell's and john boehner's favorite company. so the republican national committee put out a five-page memo cherry picking stuff from my book that they thought made obama look bad, but they for some reason didn't mention this company. but the reason that paul ryan can talk about it this way is because the stimulus has become this political disaster for obama. a year after it passed the percentage of americans who believed it created jobs are lower than the percentage of americans that believe elvis is alive. >> that's a pretty big number. >> no, it is actually pretty small. a lot of people think the stimulus is the bank bail out, which it isn't. it is a sort of main street bail out. it is $300 billion in tax cuts that went to more than 95% of

the country and less than 10% of the country noticed it. i argue in the book, it is a narrative, it is a story, and i show how it really is changing the country. this is the purist -- pureest fiscalation of what obama meant by change. he really has achieved some good things, whether you like it or not, but politically, it has become a joke. $800 million of trains to disneyland, and snow-making machines in duluth, and all kinds of things that are not in the actual stimulus. i use it as a metaphor. >> i know the "the new, new deal", your book, speaks about the bills.

this was not set up -- the conservation corps, w.p.a., and all that, it didn't do that. somehow the branding went wrong. and maybe this is part of it, mike. when you say the new, new deal, people think of it like a new deal jobs program, which it really wasn't. >> well, i didn't call it another new deal, i called it "the new, new deal." it was in spovens to the economic collapse which -- response to the economic collapse, which the new deal was as well. the economy crashed 9% in the first quarter of 2008. those are depression numbers. at that rate, you lose an entire economy in 2009 to talk to stimulus. we have the best improvement in jobs in 30 years. of course we improved from absolutely hideous to just bad. and that's been a kind of rough -- what we really had in common is, the legacy has changed. it is not -- obama did not create big government, because

f.d.r. already did that. this was, in fact, a lot of things that were -- republicans, the house republicans voted for $715 billion stimulus. paul ryan voted for that one. while obama's $787 billion stimulus was the death of free enterprise. it wasn't radical stuff or the kind of socialism that it conveyed. mitt romney had the biggest stimulus plan. something happened on january 20, 2009. i don't know what it was. things like romney care, and the individual mandates as well as extending unemployment benefits and middle class tax cuts and other things within the stimulus suddenly became politically toxic to republicans in washington. not around the country. there were plenty of republicans around the country that supported it. >> before we leave the topic, i do think it is a key part of

obama's presentation as a community on the stimulus bill that he inherited in the congress bleeding jobs, put a stop on the leak. and things haven't necessarily taken off from there. but he stopped the depression. do you guys think people will take that seriously and give him credit for that? >> well, i think he committed the same mistake that a lot of people in public life commit, which is he over promised what it would do. the whole point of the stimulus was to drive the unemployment rate below 8%. four years later, and it is not below 8%. there are almost two million -- my recollection is two million or three million less people working when it past than we have pursuing, with working or looking for work than we have today.

i think a lot of times, one of the things that's been very interesting to me about the difference between the public sector and the private sector, most of the time in the private sector, the objective with most of your constituents is to under promise and over deliver. that's where you really want to be. you don't want to be stuck in a place where you over promise and under deliver, because your customers leave you, your spouse leaves you, there's a lot that goes wrong there. i think in politics people have a tendency to over-promise. i think on this one a lot of people over-promised, and it almost doesn't matter what's in the details. people remember the big commitment that was made, and they don't forget. >> they thought they had to put

a jobs number on it. as charlie knows, the unemployment is the lagging indicator. we nailed the delta. it was like, oh, great, you can put that on your tombstone. >> what is the delta? >> they correctly predicted that the effect of the stimulus would add 3% of g.d.p., which actually most independent economists put it at 2% to 4%, but of course things were worse than they thought when it started and unemployment went below 8% before the stimulus started. it obviously wasn't the stimulus' fault. nobody reads footnotes in epic political mistakes. >> you look back at that time the fact that there were plenty of things that i think it has become clear that the white house knew internalally that they did not project honestly in

a level of despair. you look back, and it does not feel like the inaugural that's delivered at a time when there is epic crisis. because there was legislative agenda. there was cap and trade and a bunch of other things. i think if they had exceptional jobs crisis, it would have been harder to go to congress and put political capital on things that were not directly connected to economic growth. they still made a gamble trying to put the agenda through. you know, short-term economic growth. >> this is also a quote from paul ryan. college graduates should not have to live out their 20's in their childhood bedrooms staring at the fading obama posters.

i thought that was a powerful line. you immediately think of people in their 20's who were in that situation and some of them were obama enthusiasts. a much more far-reaching look of the different ways campaigns can identify people who support them and get them out to the polls and find new ways to reach them and get them out there. we all know young voters were a huge staple of the obama coalition four years ago. it was very, very noticeable. young people were active in politics. i did not notice a huge, you know, groundswell of young people, particularly in charlotte. they canceled the outdoor acceptance speech, which would be the equivalent of what they did four years ago in denver, but they invited all the people to go to a viewing party at the convention center in charlotte, and i saw a whole massive line of people.

the 20 somethings in charlotte did not want to come out and see barack obama. what are some of the things they can do to try to get their vote out? >> one of the sort of interesting -- i write in my book about people using randomized control files, which are basically drug files for politics where voters are going to -- >> are you able to measure in specific terms cause and effect and figure out what else you can

-- we come away uning a lot of things. we have often thought of electrics being in the context to sort of change people's opinions. i think we are increasingly seeing it as a game of who can alter their behaviors. so a lot of these efforts of mobile zation are sort of universal. they have been informed by behavioral sciences. you know, the best documented method of getting somebody to vote in michigan in 2006, they sent people a copy of their vote history. your vote is on file at the suffolk county board of elections. this is what you did in the last six elections. you did not vote in the school board election. and here are your neighbor's

votes. there's another election coming up. after wards we'll send you an updated stat. this includes turnout by people down to 20%. it also includes death threats. well, in a year, people try to figure out how to soften the social pressures, psychologists call it, the idea that people want to live up to the idea of themselves as voters, and they want to sort of fit in with their neighbors. one of the things that's sort of a collaboration of democrats and operatives determined they would soften now, people on the left are using letters to specifically target voters who had not voted since 2008. they haven't really developed habits of voting. once people develop habits of voting, you do not have to do anything different to keep voting.

they sent a letter, peter, public records show you voted in 2008. i want to thank you for taking the time to be a voter. you know, there is another election coming up, and i hope after wards i can thank you again for being a good citizen. so increasingly people on the left are using these modes to motivate people. in may have been six months ago that romney could have been a candidate that might have had per swacive appeal to get -- persuassiv appeal. he appears to be that type of candidate. so the question for people on the left in the obama campaign and their allies, super p.a.c.s., labor, parties, it is not are thee they going to support us, it is are they going

to vote, something they have not habitually been acustomed to doing. >> a lot of people assumed right up through tampa, the romney campaign, it was clear from the convention, that he was trying to run primarily on the kind of arguments that you mentioned earlier. obama has not lived up to his promises. the economy is not good. it gives someone else a chance. >> so obama -- the perception now is that argument alone is not -- so did the republicans miss a big opportunity? >> i think the president -- the campaign took advantage of one. they spenspent $1 million in negative ads in swing states in the summer sort of reframing who mitt romney was.

they were, i believe, enormously effective. and it happened without any real organized response coming from the other side. one of the things i learned as a candidate is a campaign is partly about telling your story, making your case, and framing who you are, but it is also by the other side a case of the other side framing you as something you are not. my wife and my kids and i would watch some of the stuff on tv, and it was just crazy. they would look at the tv and laugh. i know you think that's funny, but the problem is -- [laughter] >> there are a lot of people in massachusetts that that don't know you and would probably believe it. [laughter] >> the interesting thing is -- i actually found this out a different way.

one of the things i did after the election, a democrat, a friend of mine, sent me karl rove's book. if you want to learn a lot about an interesting guy thinks about politics, it is worth it. when he was a teenager, one of the things he figured out, and it framed his way of thinking of politics for the rest of his life. there are a lot of people who are registered to vote who don't show up, and if you just get your team to show up, you can win a lot of elections. and i think this whole nation about behavior modification and targeting, this is a huge issue.

a lot of people watch tv, and i think that is a huge part of how people will try to get their team to show up. i'm not sure in the aggregate we're ever going to get 70% of the registered voters to show up? that creates a big opportunity for someone. obama in particular. in 2008, his team -- team obama -- it was about hope and change and excitement. i think some of the behavioral times showed that people like being part of the crowd. they like feeling like this is the cool thing to do. they are part of a cause. i think obama has struggled this time around. i think some of his advisors have said he can't run on change again.

it would feel like, sort of, they are dancing in the end zone when americans aren't feeling very happy about where things are. they argue about this stuff all the time. i have been surprised, and i don't know what the behavioral science is, but you can see them starting with obama care, right? obama care. which after a while is totally toxic. he's starting to embrace the auto bail out. he's even embracing stuff in the stimulus like middle class tax cuts and renewable energy, even though he doesn't say "stimulus." he hasn't come up and said, hey, change happens. i am wondering what you think the signs are? >> i read a whole bunch of innovation has taken place based on the last decade in politics. some of it happened a decade ago. people in politics from the social sciences or commercial

marketing, but also it is not a coincidence that all this happened after 2008. our politics is entirely in the shadow of florida and the narrowness of that election. it demonstrated two things to people who were in campaign. one is, how absolutely polarized the sort of new electorate is. i wrote in my book about bush's chief polling advisor who starts writing a memo even before the supreme court has ruled in december of 2000, looking ahead to bush's election in 2004. this election won't be decided as we had often thought, by battling offer swing voters, moderate independentents in the ste. if you think back to what we talked about during the clinton years, when we thought of how elections were being waged, and we thought that in 1984, going

out to the polls, 26% of voters in the country attacked the ballot and included both the democrats at different levels. in 2000 it is about 7%. that's basically the environment we are in when parties realign, and people that want to vote, vote democratic. campaigns have thousands of data points about each of you. and so the single ones are what party redge -- the single biggest predictor is what party you are registered in. campaigns are still spending -- we still talk about campaigns. a big debate of people voting, and the fact is, most people's votes are highly predictable, and campaigns know this. you can look at the polls on any given day. but they are averaging out at 48, 46, whatever, you do the

math, that's 7%, 8% undecided. you look at the polls, and maybe there are a few plts of soft obama voters who might be convinced to defect to romney, and soft romney voters the other way, but maybe 15% of voters that are up for grabs, and the other 85% are about changing and motivating them to vote. >> i think there is a significant divide out there. i think defining the divide is an important question. some say it is social issues that divide people. the heartland has a different set of social issue values than people on the post. but others suggest that it is something deeper, you know, that at a moment when there is global competition and there is so ever economic insecurity because of global competition that, you know, one answer to that is the democratic idea of shoring up the safety net. let's make sure your pensions

and your health care are really, really strong, since there will be turbulence in the economy. the other part of that is, why should our fortunes be tethered to iran or the straits of hormuz, we need to be confident that the big forces are being turned off, and that we will be doubling down on free enterprise. what do you think? where is the divide? >> i think it is probably all of the above, and sasha knows that most of those people who are working the campaigns are trying to figure out which one that is the most. and somehow they are going to try to get to 51%.

one of the guidelines, just talking in people's back yards and living rooms and all the rest, i actually wrote about this after the election, it is amazing. most voters care a lot about something, right? but the number of different somethings that are out there, it's really big. the economy is a really big deal. but i'm telling you, i was shocked at how many different things that sort of fundamentally people feel about this stuff. >> one thing i -- there are a few more quotes we can blow through here. if you think of the value of the debate between the two parties came into sharp relief. we saw a number of different republican speakers quote as a response to obama who had flipped up in a downside where

he was talking about the importance of government investment and education and roads and that nobody is really out there alone, but he said it in a way that he was telling entrepreneurs that you didn't really do it yourself and it was all societies that did it. and the republicans really doubled down on it. i thought the best and most moving was suzanna martinez, a very popular governor of new mexico, she is talking about a security business that my parents started. she said my parents grew that business from one 18-year-old guarding a bingo lzsh parlor to more than 120 businesses in the united states. but my parents stood up, and you bet they built it themselves. now, the republicans seemed to turn the tables on the republicans in a strong way. one of the more prosaic

arguments bill clinton said, we think are you all in this together is a better philosophy than you are on your own. and obama, i thought, was a little underrated as time goes by. obama talked about the importance of free enterprise and his belief in free enterprise. then he said we also believe in something called citizen ship, a word at the essence of our democracy. the idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to each other and future generations. it seemed democrats stepped forward and started claiming the founding documents. that is a high-level philosophical mono a mono. how is that going to play out? >> i think we are under the impression how many weeks ago when romney and paul ryan said they wanted a philosophical debate. after the first 48 hours of

that, i don't get defensive -- i don't think the romney campaign was -- >> i think romney's heart is in it, but romney really didn't back -- >> everything i can tell is that they are, you know, flailing at the moment. egypt and libya the last couple days, and before that, the chig owe school strike, trying to pin that on obama. that romney has given up about making this fundamentally about job creation or the economy. and it doesn't seem to sort of sustain the ryan-triggered debate over a big question about the size of government. i think that we built that, you know, sort of aesthetic

difference between the parties. it doesn't seem like it was part of a broader argument over the course of that week in tampa or since then. >> did you get the ideas that the democrats took it and used it for an argument of their own? >> i think they did. i think they were getting ready to run in the ryan plan even before we had any idea that ryan was near romney's short list. and some of that is -- nearly $100 million trying to define romney was this well planned deliberate effort during the summer to link romney's business record, romney's job creation record, governor of massachusetts, and then his personal finances and investments overseas, and then the sort of questions over his

tax returns, and there is a gradual effort to build a story that was in the heart of romney's decision, which was his, you know, sort of stipulated unquestioned leadership on the economy and as -- and ability as a job creator. one idea was romney might be good at running a business. his success, either is irrelevant to your well being or quite possibly his territory. it doesn't really matter. but shazz as long as that's ambiguous enough for you not to be real caunlt of him, i think that's fine. i think the fact that they did all summer, that romney campaign through a bunch of tacticals, you know, by miscalculation, including still not having an answer on the tax returns that enters the conversation one way

or another, that can go on. >> but thanks to romney, they never showed tax returns, and no one seemed to care. >> well -- foss force >> most presidential candidates, democrat and republican, have released more that -- released more than romney and obama. >> how many people? do you remember one way or another whether any of the presidents have? >> i don't think the romney administration was as prefared for that question as it should have been. i also think one of the things for candidates is just because you think it is dead doesn't mean it is. it is aleds always interesting to me to find out what the media and the other team will choose to focus on.

they will go out, and when they will decide that the issue is over. that is an important distinction. what's news and what's not, give people the benefit of the doubt, and something they won't give to somebody else. >> and i think from -- you know, if we look back at five months or so from when romney sort of pushed santorum aside in tampa, part of the -- what romney did was allow this void to exist talking about the tax returns, could, you know, win voters attention and allow media and obama campaign on a daily basis. romney really had very little to say. romney would say, i want to talk about the economy. he didn't actually say anything about the economy. he wasn't telling -- it was

based on the sort of underlying assumption, everybody knows i've been successful in business. but there was very little, especially from -- because they didn't know him a whole lot better than massachusetts voters know you. he didn't know a lot about the olympics. he said i don't want to talk about anything but the economy, but i am not going to say anything specific about the economies. i'm not even going to do my standard silly things, so we were talking about mitt romney and the economy on his term. >> he created a problem for himself, too. sasha has pointed out. both sides seem to think it is -- both had to get to a primary. so we did -- he did take some

positions in that primary, and it was basically how can i get to the right of everybody who is coming after me on everything? the nems, -- the democrats, sometimes they are popular, sometimes they are not popular, lately even iraq on foreign policy, on the issues the democrats do better. the tea part lien has really done -- there is a reason he, you know, he says he wants to talk about the economy, which means the economy sucks. i want everyone to know that. that's a legitimate line of argument. but then when it comes to public policy, which, a, the national media is not really interest in to public policy, and b to the extent he gets specific, it is only going to cause some problems not only with his own

voters but the potentially persuadeable voters. >> here is another problem where you get into a few problems. this is from mitt romney in his acceptance speech. we must reign in -- rein in the sky rocketing cost of health care. two issues embedded in there. one, is obama care really so bad that the republicans can sort of take it on squarely when you have seen the democrats sneak in with a few more positive things about it and actually its numbers are trying to go up a little bit, the number of people that support the affordable care act is strengthening.

i personally don't believe -- i personally believe obama care is worse than the health care bill. i have a feeling that why are we underpaying for services at exactly the point in time when our population is aging and most folks have chronic illnesses and what they need more than anything else is help with managing what i would describe -- that is right in the sweet spot of what services are supposed to be about.

they got hit harder than almost anybody coming out of that legislation. the two people might think about, they didn't do much to stop it, and number two, it didn't do much for the deficit. i do believe,, you know, i used to write a lot about what i would do instead. and you know, this would be a good question to ask you. as a candidate i struggle with this issue a lot. and several "boston globe" reporters wrote some articles which my wife thought were funny in response to it. which is, how do you talk about policy matters in a substantive serious way at a level where it is understandable and at the same time meaningful? because what's happening is, you know, i would go 50 feet down

nooth into the ground and leave everybody, but if you talk about it up here, you are accused of not being specific. the whole question of finding that middle ground i think is really hard. >> let me answer your question. i don't know, and neither does barack obama. i tell a lot of stories about this problem from the white house that they were wrestling with inside the white house. particularly, p.m., the stimulus. when you are a giant, everything looks like an ant. there are these two-part messages that seem so sensible. we are doing cost cuts, but we are also doing spending. we are saving the economy in the short p term, but we are transforming the economy in the long term with clean energy, health costs, and education

reform, and new economic order. we are doing stimulus now because we are in an economic emergency, but we will go to fiscal responsibility later. just in the same way that obama -- we are cutting back for 95% -- we are cutting taxes for 95% of the population population but raising it for 2%. then it turns out there was a one-part message, no. and that was a lot simpler. people say that bill clinton should be the secretary of explaining things, that he somehow brings it all down. it doesn't seem to me he's doing any kind of magic, he just has a little bit longer to talk, and people were forced to listen. it is very difficult, and i do not blame people because sasha and i are paid to watch this stuff.

we know about some of these little details and where people are fudging the truth. but most people don't. these sound bites are incredibly powerful. it does come down to who has a better one. >> do you think if you were a voter now looking at these two candidates and you hear romney say, i am going to be repealing obama care, but half the time he says repeal, there have been no specifics at all offered on what the reem would look like. you know, when people are upset about health care, blaming it on obama care may be effective. but i think if people are going into the voting booth, if you are getting rid of obama care and you haven't said what will replace it. you yourself were saying a few years ago were so awful that a lot of people believe that any reform is better.

i mean, how do you plug it in? >> i think the big question on that one is how many people are going to vote on the federal deficit? i mean, that for me is my number one issue. i have three kids, and i feel like i'm -- i don't live in a country that says we should not pass our debts down to our children. i was brought up on our whole thing. you have to make sure one way or another at the end of the day the bills are paid. most of the people that i who have an issue with obama care, it is really -- when you talk about it, it is not whether it is good or bad for health care, it is that they think it won't help the federal deficit and they think it will make the deficit worse. it is a no brainer from my point

of view. i think that's a point whether you are there are variations on this theme, but if you were to say to me, what do i think about the electorate when it comes to health care. there are a whole bunch of people who have pretty good coverage, and think it works. that's a pretty good number. there's a whole bunch of people who are on medicare who worry a lot about their health care and about medicare because they are of an age and at a time in their lives when it is a heck of a lot more important than it was 10 or 15 years before. as you get older, health care becomes a much higher priority issue. so i don't know how the back and forth on medicare is going to play out. but i think for a lot of folks

for whom medicare really matters, other than obama care is good or bad for medicare has a lot to do -- >> i was -- one of the things about the clinton speech is the returning of $1 billion from insurers because of the provision in obama care which says 80% of what you take in has to be used on patient care not on administrative overhead and be sure to return a billion dollars to customers. is that a winner? people are sort of perking up their ears when they hear that. you ran a health care. in >> in massachusetts it was 90% passed. this will go a little into what people pay attention to. but you take that billion dollars and you spread it across the population that's involved,

i think it is $50, ok? and i think the way you get it is through an adjustment in your preem -- premium next month. so the only question is, if your premium is high to begin with, and you get a small adjustment, you may or may not even notice. i -- and you don't know the reason you are getting it is because it was part of this legislation that you can only spend 80% on health care and all of that. i don't know -- short answer is, someone is going to have to point that out to them. >> i haven't done any research on this, by your government in washington will do anything to give people pause, that i wonder whether it is the administration, congress, or a particular piece of legislation can ever be credited by a large percentage of the population

anymore than actually improving people's lives with benefits because there is some underlying -- he's out doing this p the administration either probably got credit or was able to take credit for things in the stimulus. especially the tax cuts. it never occurred to people that anything was going to change in their lives in that institution. >> another demon

>> i don't think those are geometricallo opposed decisions. >> big business -- >> that doesn't mean voters have to choose one or -- over the other. we should be clear. campaigns have debates with one another that are not necessarily targeted at changing voters' minds. romney has an elite constituency.

there are limitations to, you know, in political terms to what mitt romney can say in abstract terms about the role of big business because he is raising money this summer. there is nothing untoward about that. and obama has constituencies in the labor movement that, you know, he was part of the democrat coalition and a huge source of, you know, manpower and resources going into an election. and there are certain things if we talk in excess what you want to do with government, but you are not going to say because you need your allies. >> people are very dissatisfied the economy is really bad. the only thing they are together on is the position of the republican party. it has been very much to say no, these things aren't working.

so it surlings up a lot of anger. give yep that obama is pulling ahead and is pulling out of -- he's pulling ahead right now, and today, most people feel like he would win. he says it takes away from that the income disparity is a real concern. distrusting corporate give-aways and quick profits at the expense of the average guy is something that really is on people's minds, and hasn't been dispatched, because obama really over the last 3 1/2 years does not push that button. all the attention of what obama solutions are, has it suddenly been given to people that -- >> i don't know that it would have to be -- i think right now paced upon what we can tell, voters don't either think the

economy is so horrible that they will reflectionably pick out the in-- kick out the incumbent solely for that, or they don't blame him for the bad state of the economy and romney is showing up in the polls as an unpopular nominee who is not trusted on a whole slough of domestic and international issues. so when the race is like that, there is a very small burden on obama to make the race about anything else. they have on some of the social issues, but i don't think they need to rethink the campaign. >> i would push back on that a little. i would say even the fact it is

at 50% in hardly any of the swing states. so it has been clear to me this notion that everybody likes this and hates that, i don't know. my plan at this point is the president is an enormously popular guy. he is 20 points ahead of that. that is unusual. he's done a good job of making the case that i inherited problems, i'm trying my best, and it is just going to take a heck of a lot longer than i thought. and he spent $100 million on saying mitt romney is the bad guy with no real response coming from the other side, and that turned out to be an enormously effective piece of work.

now, you are still talking about a race that in most states will decide the collection 48, 43. we'll see. >> i don't think it is as close as you think it is. the debates will be more important. >> if i can put on my policy hat again, the one lesson of all of this would have the polarized country. people that did not like obama from the beginning still don't like him. his numbers have been active in the stimulus debate and unbelievably stable. the tea party went nuts. a revolution heaping in the -- happening in the country. my gosh, so unpopular.

financial reform, people like that better. how is that going to play? how is this going to play? it has been very stable. a couple lessons. one is the kind of thing that sasha is writing about. the actual mechanics much politics is getting people to -- but for policy, the one thing it shows is, you can do a lot of stuff. you can go and do the agenda, which is -- my book was about how this guy who actually has not a lot of new ideas, they are kind of the same old ideas, but then he went ahead and did that. the fact whether he has been successful or unsuccessful hasn't really changed his numbers. he is still pretty popular, not too popular, but in a decent position. not a great position, and the people who say, like, oh, he

shouldn't have done health care or oh, you know, this student loan thing, that was great politics, this was terrible politics, it has been very stable. as long as he has the power, you might as well do something rather than agonize over it. >> we have to start thinking about questions. we have about 10 or 15 minutes left. if you want to think about it, monica would you like to collect the questions? >> you take your time while we're talking. >> this sort of matches up with the idea -- there is no really good reason why well educated voters should understand how energy loans work or let alone what the actual companies that are producing new technologies are doing or

whether the marketplace has a need for what they are doing. voters interpret policies through the lens whether or not they like the party or the individual associated with that. so health care, i write about politics. i don't understand how the health care industry works. i don't understand how insurance markets work. >> it is not working for us. >> it is not my level of expertise. what we see, there is a bit of evidence that people who like barack obama thought his health care awas pretty good and people that didn't like him thought his health care plan was pretty bad regardless of whether or not they know or understand what is an incredibly complex piece of legislation. and i think we see that to some degree on foreign policy. the voters are for a minute -- the voters are filtering their understanding of the policy based on whether they like the candidate or not. >> and based on what people think are the important issues.

people take their cues from their party leaders. for the deficit, you can just as easily put in a democrat saying, oh, the deficit is a big issue because look what happened under bush, and look how paul ryan does this deficit busting, this and that and the other thing. these things, it is an honestly held belief. but for most voters, they think, i guess i don't like it because the dirty liberals. >> we should go through this quickly. maybe i will nominate one person. we do have a lot of these questions right here. they want you to talk about the impact of the auto industry decision, positions, for president obama and governor romney in the election. i have a quote from jennifer granholm where he she said in romney's elevator the companies get the parts and the workers

depet the shaft. you heard that a lot at the convention. that is because it is appealing in the midwest. with the election of ryan as the vice-presidential nominee, romney has established the midwest as a battleground, and obama who is not personally all that popular there has this auto industry bail out in his back pocket. you tell me, what will the impact of the auto industry bail out be? >> i think it puts michigan out of reach for romney. i think we can agree on that. and you can see now romney is trying to claim that essentially he was for it all along. it is very -- it is one of those things where you don't know what the actual was. maybe we would not have lost a million auto industry jobs. but certainly the people that it was going to be doomed instantly were wrong, and obama did step

into a bad situation, and you can actually see with your eyes that osama bin laden is dead and -- >> ok. sasha. this is another subject that we didn't talk about but it is interesting. the question is why the republicans moved laws forward to push voter identification laws which tends to disenfranchise minorities. this tends to favor a white male voter population. low income people, disproportionate numbers of minorities, don't drive cars, don't have those vehicles at hand. if they are going rushing to the polls it will be hard to get this i.d. how is that playing out? >> the battleground states have an idealogue they were paying

attention to. peopleize up the extent of the problem, but, you know, somewhere between 5% and 10% of the electorate could be affected by it. it is an increasingly sophisticated tool for voters who lack the i.d. contact and sort of run systems to get them to physically get documents before happened, it is a huge logistical challenge. it is something they will be doing on election day. >> it is a big -- >> you want your base to come out and the other guy's base not to. >> charlie baker said obama over-promised and under delivered. the question is, to what extent is obama's under performance due

to republican unwillingness to cede any crowned? -- cede any ground? >> he had 60 votes in the senate. >> after -- >> anyone who thinks that obama did not have majority control of the majority and the bully pull pit and all the rest for the first two years he was there, i think, is kidding themselves, and he hasn't taken seriously the notion of doing something about the deficit ever. he made a big s clfment -- he made a big statement about deal with jobs now and the deficit later. most people thought the budget piece submitted in the last couple years was not enough.

my question is, as a deficit voter, i don't care that much about that issue. >> another candidate mentioned the supreme court. is this an issue where the rift is more people will be alienated ? some people are talking about standing for social issues. there literally have been abortion disputes going on now. i can say having driven from tampa to charlotte, even very conservative people in places like georgia, women were concerned about the aiken comment and that ryan supported aiken's position on abortion? do you think voters know very little about the supreme court? >> the voters who are persuadeable, the 12% or 15 bever, there is information -- 15%, there is information that there is a sideways margin.

there is one study in a group that kicked off -- the supreme court is an incredibly abstract concern. it has to be used for activist voters on each side, and as peter points out, there are incredibly vivid real divides that both sides are invested in on social issues, whether it is the gay marriage issue, the reproductive rights. i don't think you have to do this conjectural, well, he's been president eight years. you don't have to do that anymore. >> the next issue for mike, out-sourcing. how do american job creators create jobs in a global economy? >> the global economy in american jobs, the suggestion has been made that romney himself but the companies he

supports have various advantages to do business overseas. the benefit is for the united states. how does that play out? >> i think it is a reference generally to out-sourcing. >> i think out-sourcing is -- nobody likes it during a campaign. i any it is not a coincidence that even though romney and obama are basically free traders, you see even romney running ads accusing obama of out-sourcing the wind turbines to china. which hasn't occurred: occurred. we have in-sourced turbines. .

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: thank you, meerks. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent -- thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one order to inquire mr. cantor for the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i yield to the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, on monday and tuesday, no votes are expected in the house. on wednesday the house will meet at noon for morning hour, 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until

6:30 p.m. on thursday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on friday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules next week, including a prioritization of visas for foreign graduates of american universities in the stem fields and issue being championed by chairman lamar smith, the gentleman from texas, as well as bob goodlatte from virginia and raul labrador from idaho. a complete list of suspensions will be announced at the close of business today. in addition, mr. speaker, the house will consider h.j.res. 118, sponsored by chairman dave camp, which provides for congressional disapproval of a rules submitted by the department of health and human services relating to waivers of work requirements with respect to the temporary assistance for needy families programs.

the house will also consider h.r. 3409, the stop the war on coal act, sponsored by bill johnson of ohio, which is a package of bills to expand domestic energy production and help create american jobs. lastly, mr. speaker, members are advised that with the senate's expected passage of the continuing resolution, we no longer anticipate votes in the house during the week of october 1. this is a change from the original house calendar. i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information with respect to what we're going to consider next week and also i was going to ask him, but he's already indicated that he doesn't expect the scheduled meeting of the week in october to occur and i thank him for that information. that would indicate essentially then, therefore, that we have approximately a little over a day and a half, a day and 3/4

remaining before the election. i want to ask the gentleman first of all, been a lot of talk about the work that has not been done. we have not done the jobs bill that i've been urging us to consider. we have not addressed the middle class tax cut in a way that we'll deal with that and which both sides agree. we have disagreement on tax cuts for those who are in -- not in the middle class. the farm bill. i want to discuss that in a second. the violence against women act. the farm bill and the violence against women act and the middle class tax cut both passed the united states senate and postal reform, there's also agreement on that in the united states senate. obviously sequestration. and i want to talk a little bit about the fiscal cliff, mr. leader. but in the farm bill, as you

know we have a discharge petition that is pending which is somewhat unusual and that our party is -- has initiated a discharge petition to ask you to bring to the floor a bill that your committee reported out of committee. that's somewhat unusual in these discharge petitions. a number of republicans have signed on to that, as you know. as a matter of fact, we understand you're suggesting to some that they do sign -- not you, personally -- excuse me. but there's some suggestion they sign on to that as a -- as an indication for their support for the farm bill. the senate passed a farm bill 64-35, mr. leader. we are hoping that that bill could be brought to the floor next week. it's not on the calendar, but in light of the fact that 16 republicans voted in favor of it in the senate, it's clear

that it does have broad bipartisan support. the ag committee here in this house reported out a bill 35-11. that bill has, of course, not been brought to the floor. we don't have much time left, as you just announced. even if we count thursday as a full day and even if we count friday as a full day of next week we have essentially two days and then suspension votes on wednesday night. many farmers are facing the worst droughts they've seen in many years. we passed a drought bill here that is not agreed to by the senate and in fact the farm community, as i think the gentleman probably knows, perhaps not unanimously but in large number opposes the drought bill that we passed and the reason they opposed it is because -- and i think you were absolutely right, mr. majority

leader, when you talked in the past years about certainty. farmers are opposed to the farm bill that we passed from the house because it doesn't give them any certainty. they think a five-year bill is prmble. they've seen 2/3 of the -- preferble. they've seen 2/3 of the preferable. they've seen 2/3 of the senate pass it. i would ask assurance if there's any possibility that we're going to consider a farm bill, either the house bill as reported out overwhelmingly from the republican chair of the committee, or the senate bill, passed in a bipartisan fashion, is there any possibility before we leave here in consideration of the crisis that is in the farm community that we'll consider that bill? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i want to respond to his initial statements about the house's work in terms of jobs and taxes and the

gentleman well knows that we have sent to the senate well over 30 measures that are job-creating bills that will help improve the environment for small business men and women to actually begin investing and creating jobs again. as the gentleman know, we passed h.r. 8, the job protection and recession prevention act. we passed that. a bipartisan vote. including 19 house democrats. this followed up on over 20 hearings on tax reform this congress. and what we did in that bill, mr. speaker, the gentleman recalls, is we made sure that taxes are not going to go up on anybody right now because of the economic situation that exists throughout this country. we don't believe that it is a desirable outcome to see taxes go up on anyone and to take more of their money right now while they're having a difficult time getting through the month. and that is why, mr. speaker,

we believe we continue to stand on the side of the hardworking taxpayers and we ask the gentleman to please, when he cites the fact that we didn't pass his jobs bill, we passed a jobs bill. we passed numerous jobs bills. in fact, over 30 jobs bills sitting in the senate. the inaction has been on the senate. so mr. speaker, with the gentleman's question about the farm bill, i in fact just came out of a meeting with one of his members to talk about the farm bill. we're trying to look for ways forward. yes, there can be a possibility that we act again on the issue of the disaster and the drought. as the gentleman rightly said, we passed the drought relief bill sitting over in the senate, again, inaction. the gentleman indicates the reason for opposition to that bill. there's nothing in the bill that is controversial. it's the fact that some who insist on having something else in the bill didn't have it.

well, one thing we know is we're all for allowing the relief is the farmers. why can't we get that done? why can't we finally decide, you know, there are some areas of disagreement and we realize that reasonable peopleo and certainly in election season sort of emphasizes that, unfortunately. but we also know the things in common. addressing the drought issue is we do have in common. we passed out of the house. mr. speaker, i'd say to the gentleman any indication he'd give that perhaps there would be some movement on that would be, i think, a positive thing for the farmers. and we continue to work on how to go forward and, yes, there could be a possibility there's some action next week on the issue of the farm bill. looking to find ways that we can work together on issues that we all support, not issues that divide us and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i think the comments of the gentleman are interesting and i appreciate his comments.

we do have agreement in the senate on a farm bill. they voted for it 64 votes, almost 2/3 of the senate. we may not have agreement but we had a bill that came out of the republican-led committee, your committee with over 2/3 vote and neither one of those have been brought to the floor. so we're arguing on something that we had pretty significant disagreement on. yes, there were democrats that voted for the drought relief. i can understand their view. but the farm community is opposed to the drought relief bill, not unanimously but significant part. so the gentleman points out that we ought to pass that on which we have agreement. let me suggest to him that 98% of americans and 97% of small business people, we agree on not having a tax increase. the gentleman's worried about those people who are making about 20,000 a -- worried about

making $2,000 a month. there are people who are having trouble. we need to give them assurance and the gentleman just said, just said we ought to be able to act on that on which we agree. i think the gentleman, maybe i'm incorrect. but i would tell the gentleman, on this side of the aisle, we will produce the overwhelming majority votes on our side of the aisle for a bill that ensures that there will be no tax increase on those who are making either individually, under $200,000 a year, or as a husband and wife $250,000 a year. i assure the gentleman that i will produce and we will produce on this side well over 180 votes for that proposition. so i tell my friend all he has

to do is produce 40 votes but i think he'll produce many more than that because unless he says i'm wrong i think when you say nobody ought to get a tax increase we have agreement, and that's just what the gentleman is talking about. we have an agreement that nobody under $250,000, a couple, $200,000 individual, shall get a tax increase on january 1 of this year. we could pass it next week. we could pass it -- we could pass it under a suspension calendar, in my opinion. we could send it to the senate and they've already passed a bill. they've already passed a bill through the senate, which adopted that proposition. so we have a majority votes in the senate and i would hope we would have almost unanimity in the senate on that proposition. but i think what i hear the gentleman saying is unless we have agreement on 100%, the fact that we agree on 98% and

97% we're not going to move the bill. now, i agree with the gentleman. if we have agreement, that's something central that we have agreement on. i hope we could move it. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would say there's not agreement right now that we ought to raise taxes in this economy. and the reason is, mr. speaker, we are concerned about those individuals that the gentleman speaks about that perhaps may be out of work or underemployed or trying to make it and having a real difficult time. we're concerned about those people, and the best thing we could do is create a job and see them go back to work and we saw that this summer ernst & young put out a study demonstrating that his tax policies -- the gentleman's tax policy, the president's plan to raise taxes is going to destroy 710,000 jobs and slash $200 billion from the economy and

lower wages for all working americans by 1.8%. that's what that study says. so, no, there's not agreement that we should raise taxes like that. because if you raise taxes, there will be less jobs and less growth. we need to focus on those who want to get back to work. that's where there's agreement is, we all want to work people. we believe you don't help people by laying down a tax increase, put more money in the government that can't seem to figure out a way to fix the problem once and for all. that's what we want to do is fix that problem, help those people and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his response. i don't think it answered my question. we understand that you want to see no tax increases, no additional contributions from people making $1 million net taxable income or more or $10 million taxable income. we understand you don't want to do it. we don't agree on that.

you're correct but we do agree on the fact that 98% of americans who make less than $250,000 couple, $200,000 individual, those ought not to get a tax increase on january 1 and very frankly -- you didn't respond to me. i presume you agree with that. what you don't agree with is if we don't do it all on something we disagree with, that's what's causing gridlock in congress, that's what's causing this congress to be the least productive congress in which i served in 32 years, that's what's causing us to not listen to one another, talk by one another and not agree. that's why the farm bill hasn't been passed. that's why the violence against women bill hasn't been passed. that's why the postal reform has not been passed. that's why middle class tax cuts has not been passed. because if you don't get it all you don't want to do any of it i say it respectfully to the majority leader, we agree that 98% of americans ought not to

get a tax increase. we do disagree on whether those who are better off can make a contribution to bringing this deficit down and dealing with our debt. and what the gentleman responded was unless we're for 100%, we're not going to be for any. that's what i hear you saying and i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: that's not why these bills haven't passed. the violence against women bill passed out of this house, sitting over in the senate because the senate has its own bill that has a blue slip problem. let them send the -- let the legislative process work over there, send as you bill and we'll get something done. the gentleman did not join us in that bill. so the fact that the minority didn't get their way, they wouldn't join us on the bill. we went and did our work. and i'd say more to the gentleman, mr. speaker. you know, the postal reform bill, the fact of the matter is this side, mr. speaker, the minority will not agree to reforms. everyone knows the post office

needs reforms. everyone knows the debt that that organization continues to incur and lays on the u.s. taxpayers. we're trying to fix that problem. but because the gentleman and his colleagues refuse to go along with reforms like a five-day delivery. this is something that the president supports. but because his side refuses to go along with trying to reform that organization, we can't move. we can't do that. we all know that's common sense. common sense in reforming the postal service, something everyone knows needs reform. that's why this bill didn't pass. and we've got another issue on the farm bill. there are issues of policy differences. and the gentleman knows, throughout last year we went through a lot of these policy differences in the snap program and the rest. we have g.a.o. recommendations year in and year out about that

program. but unwillingness on the part of the nye mortgage to ever -- minority to ever engage in a discussion on real reform on those programs. let's remember what we're talking about in the farm bill. most of it by far is not farm programs. they're food programs. again, raising the question of how it is we're going to go forward. we need to understand the specifics and other real policy differences. yes, we're all willing to work together. or at least we are on this side. so i really take exception with the gentleman's assertions that somehow we're sitting here demanding everything. no. we want to work together and set aside differences and agree on things we can find in common. that's how anybody in everyday life tries to run their business or their family. it's not all or nothing, it's not black or white. and so i yield back. mr. hoyer: i say we agread on

8%. the gentleman has not said we don't agree on 98%. he brought up a lot of stuff on the farm bill and other pieces of legislation. farm bill? you're not bringing your own bill to the floor. forget about what we think on this side. you reported out of a -- out a farm bill. you reported out a farm bill some four or five months ago, i'm not sure exactly when, but it's been months ago and you have not brought it to the floor. it's not a request of whether we agree or not, your own bill you haven't brought to the floor. in terms of the violence against women act, you knew that the senate wouldn't do that and the president said he was going to veto it. you didn't sit down with the president to do it because you want to exclude some people. you want to exclude some people who were subject to domestic violence. in this country. when all the experts say if you exclude people we don't get reports, we can't get domestic abusers out of circulation, if you will. so, i think the gentleman's characterization is not accurate. i would say, with all due respect. mr. cantor: that's not true, mr. speaker. mr. hoyer: which is not true? i said a number of things.

mr. cantor: will the gentleman yield? mr. hoyer: i will yield. the speaker pro tempore: if members would please address remarks to the chair. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i would say to the gentleman, it's not true. we don't want to exclude anybody from the benefits and he knows that. it was simply a matter of new language inserted by the senate that really -- we don't want to deny those benefits to anyone. we want everyone to have the benefits and not exclude some by specifically identifying others. and the gentleman knows that. it's unfair to characterize anything we're trying to do to exclude people from benefits when they are subject to domestic abuse. all of us care about those victims. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank -- mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for his observations. we have a difference of opinion. on whether or not they want to exclude people. because the senate bill was inclusive and every woman member

, republican, of the united states senate voted for it. everyone. that was the difference between the two bills. those who were included and a more specific group that are now included, which we think they ought to be, but we also think there aren't people include who had need to be. with all due respect i think my characterization was absolutely accurate. but it's interesting, mr. speaker, that we still haven't eabed the question -- answered the question. we tend to want to talk about other things. 98% of americans should not get a tax increase on january 1 that are making less than $250,000 individually as a family. i think we agree on that. mr. speaker, now i haven't heard that we don't agree on that but we agree on that which means there are 2% on which we do not agree. and that bill has not been brought to the floor that passed the united states senate dealing

with that 98%. or 97% of small business. now, mr. speaker, it seems to me if we have agreement on 98% and the president of the united states will sign that bill, the majority leader knows, that i know it and the american people know it. he will sign that bill. that bill has not moved, not because of the 98%, but because of the 2%. that's my contention, mr. speaker. i believe that is accurate. because the senate has passed a bill that deals with the 98%. we ought to pass that bill, we ought to pass it before we leave here next week, which will be the last few days of this session before the election. and the american people at least ought to have that on the floor and, yes, if you want to assert that we want to raise additional revenues to meet our debt, so that our children are not put deeply into debt, and, yes, those of us who are doing better can pay a little more to make sure that our children aren't in debt when they get to be adults, yes, we can have that debate.

bring the bill to the floor. and let us pass the senate bill and i would hope our republican colleagues would join us and say at least we're going to take care of the 98%. then we'll argue with the 2%. we'll argue about whether or not that's good policy or bad policy. whether it hurts the economy or grows the economy. very frankly i tell my friend, the majority leader, i was here in 1993. the gentleman was not, i believe. but i was here in 1993 when we raised revenues on the upper 1.5%, 1.75% of american taxpayers. your side said, as that study which we think is a flawed study said, that it would hurt the economy, it would increase the deficit and the unemployment. as the gentleman well knows, it did exactly the opposite. in conjunction with an extraordinary growth in the private sector, which your party said would be hurt by the action in 1993, which your party unanimously opposed.

you're taking the same contention now and that study took the same proposition. it was wrong then, it is wrong now. i would hope very sincerely that we could agree on that on which we agree. because we agree on 98%. and let that move and not hold us hostage to the 2% on which we do not agree. i don't know whether the gentleman wants to respond to that. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i do, mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. again, i'd first of all ask, was there over 8% unemployment then? that's the first thing, mr. speaker. we are about trying to do something to get people back to work. and if you're worried about the 98%, which we all are, the best thing we can do is to make sure there are more jobs and so our objection to the gentleman's proposal to raise taxes is the fact that those taxes, that tax hike that he's advocating, is going to affect 53% of all small

business income. that's joint committee on tax says that. mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time, just so we're accurate, but not 53% of small businesses and the gentleman knows that, it's a misleading figure because 53% of the income comes from a very small percentage of so-called small businesses that are not in our opinion small businesses at all. the gentleman can correct me if he believes that 53% of small businesses -- because it's our contention that 97% of small businesses, really small businesses, people who are working hard, making it from day to day and trying to grow businesses and create jobs, 97% of small business will not be affected by our proposal and if the gentleman thinks i'm incorrect i'd be glad to hear that. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, the point is about jobs. ok? and the jobs come from the small businesses who are generating

income. if you want to help people who are creating jobs, don't raise their taxes, especially when unemployment is over 8%. it's about jobs. i mean, that's the thing, mr. speaker. it's always -- we always hear somehow that we are favoring some big, bad business. no, we are about the businesses who create jobs. small businesses. according to the small business administration definition, create jobs. so, mr. speaker, just because in the gentleman's mind that somehow somebody he doesn't like because they're so successful gets the benefit, the overwhelming majority of the people who will not get a tax hike on you understand our plan will go out and create a job. mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time. mr. speaker, it is an absurd assertion that there are people i don't like. i would hope the gentleman would retract that. it has nothing to do with people we like or don't like. mr. cantor: i absolutely retract that, mr. speaker. but the gentleman continues to

malign people who he feels don't deserve the same treatment on taxes. and what we're saying, if they're successful, that means they're creating jobs, that's the prescription we need right now is more jobs. our policy is about helping the small business men and women who are creating jobs so we can finally do something to bring this unemployment down and get people back to work. that's all. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, one of the greatest challenges to growing our economy is our debt and deficit. and the uncertainty of tax policy. that is one every economist will tell you that and certainly every business person will tell you that. large, medium or small. and none of us on this side of the aisle have used -- i have not used pejorative terms with respect to large, medium or small businesses.

that's not an issue at all. it is an issue as to whether or not we're going to continue to explode this deficit and debt, mr. speaker, or whether we're going to ask some of us to contribute some of us, i.e., perhaps members of this floor, to pay a little more so our children don't confront large deficits and debt. we heard a lot about personal responsibility in the republican convention. we ought to take personal responsibility and the gentleman continues to talk about jobs jeags -- creation. we want job creation. we have a make it in america agenda that unfortunately hasn't moved. we have a jobs bill that was offered by this president, that economists say would have created a million more jobs. it lays still on a desk somewhere untended to, unconsidered and unpassed by this house. notwithstanding the fact that the leader and i have discussed that -- moving that bill to the floor on numerous occasions. i lament the fact when we talk

about this, again, he has not said once that we don't agree on the 98%. that we don't agree on the 97%. i think the reason he hasn't said we don't agree on it, because we do agree on it. he said he doesn't want anybody to get a tax increase. and by the way, that tax increase, as the gentleman well knows, will result as a result of the 2001 and 2003 tax bills passed by the republicans in this house and in the senate and signed by george bush. that's why those taxes are going up on january 1. because you sunsetted that tax increase, didn't make it permanent. why did you do that? for scoring purposes. because you knew that it would score great deficits. i want to tell the gentleman additionally, mr. speaker, that unemployment was 7%. the reason bill clinton won the election, because the economy was going downhill. that's the same reason barack obama won the election.

answered talks about jobs -- and he talks about jobs. a policy that was unanimously opposed, mr. speaker, by the republican side of the aisle in the house and in the senate created 22 million private sector jobs. we know something about creating private sector jobs. notwithstanding the fact your contention on your side of the aisle, not yours personally, mr. leader, was that if we adopted that program, you took the same argument you're taking right now , right now, that raising additional revenues to bring our deficit and debt down would undermine the creation of jobs. in 1993 you were demonstrably wrong. i don't mean you personaly, mr. speaker, i'm referring simply to the republican party's position on that. demonstrably wrong. 22 million new jobs. and in 2001 and 2003 you argued that if we bring taxes down on the people you were talking about and everybody else that we would explode the creation of

jobs. you lost jobs in the private sector over those eight years, mr. leader, i'm sure you know that, about 600,000 net, you lost four million jobs in 2008, the last year of the bush administration. you lost 818,000 jobs in the last month, mr. speaker. 818,000 jobs were lost in the last month of the bush administration. .

it is lamentable that this is another instance where we continue to talk about bills for message purposes, that we know the president won't sign, he said he won't sign it, we know the senate won't pass, and we allow those 98% of americans to twist in the wind. because we will not deal with the other 2% and we're prepared to debate that, of course. and discuss it. but i'm very sorry that we apparently will not see in the next 2 1/2 days remaining before the election that we address the middle class tax cuts. i'll yield to the gentleman if he wants to say anything further. i have one more subject i want to cover. mr. cantor:

we believe that we've got a real spending problem here, mr. speaker. we've got a problem with an unwillingness to reform some programs. the gentleman talks about, you know, members having to pay more. in fact, it was our side that put forward the proposal that we should actually allow and require members as well as federal employees to pay more toward their retirement. the gentleman wasn't supportive of that. so again, we've got some serious unfunded obligations at the federal level. the american people know that. we're trying to solve problems. the problems are not solved by raising taxes. now, the gentleman is so intent on raising taxes, again, because there is a 2% that he just wants to pay more.

ok? he's so intent on doing, that i'd ask the gentleman to join us in actually fixing the problem that all experts say you can't tax your way out of and you can't grow your way out of. you got to reform the program. mr. speaker, week of been the only one to put forward a plan that even begins to solve the problem. the president has not, the senate has not and the gentleman has not. and again, it's about solving problems, producing results for the hardworking taxpayers of this country who so desperately want to see us go forward, reclaim america in its true aspirational sense and be that place of opportunity and i yield back. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i hear the gentleman. i presume he refers to the ryan budget. of course the ryan budget does not balance the budget in a quarter of a century. the gentleman knows that. the ryan budget, of course, undermines the security of

medicare for people. the majority leader mentions federal employees. the fact of the matter is my position, mr. speaker, and this is a subject i want to talk about, we need to get america on a fiscally sustainable credible path. that's the single most important objective that this congress ought to be addressing. and mr. speaker, very frankly it was addressed in a plan called the simpson-bowles plans, perfectly know. will we agree on everies a pkt? no. it was a plan that said we had to a balanced approach to doing this. we had to deal with entitlements. we had to deal with revenues. and, mr. speaker, we are now collecting 14.8% of revenues. that's lower than at any point in time in the last 70 years.

if we were a business we would have been bankrupt a long time ago. we could keep borrowing so we could keep spending without putting a pay-go discipline that we had in the 1990's that helped, mr. speaker, balance the budget four years in a row. the only administration in the lifetime of anybody hearing, seeing or knowing that we're here that that's been done. it was done because we paid for what we borrowed. mr. speaker, we're going to have an opportunity, not in the next two days of this session before the election, but we're going to have a lame duck. we're going to have to come back here. we are going to have to do some serious things. we need to as americans, not as democrats, not as republicans, we need to have a conviction that we need to come back here and not walk away from our

responsibilities. very frankly the bowles-simpson, every republican member of that group from the house walked away from it, voted no. said, no, we will not agree. and so it didn't get the 14 votes it needed to be brought to this floor. i think that's a sad fact, mr. speaker. that should have had a robust debate. and perhaps modification. but it was a plan that said to all americans, we're all going to have to be in this together. a balanced plan, mr. speaker, to get a handle on the debt and deficit that confronts this country that is hurting our economy, hurting our people, hurting our credibility and s&p downgraded us not because, mr. speaker, we didn't have the resources to solve our

problems. standard & poor's downgraded the united states of america for the first time in the lifetime of anybody i know and perhaps anybody in history because they didn't know whether we had the political will and courage to address this debt and deficit that confronts and puts our country in danger. mike mullens, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, mr. speaker, when asked what was the biggest security problem confronting america, didn't respond iraq, iran, didn't respond terrorists, didn't respond other enemies around the world. he said the biggest security concern that he had, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, was the fiscal challenge that was not being addressed in america. . mr. speaker, we need to address it, i hope my friend the majority leader, and he and i worked together on a number of things, we worked on a number

of things this session we passed in a bipartisan fashion, i would hope that he and i would both commit ourselves to during the lame duck session do our responsibility to america and to our constituents in reaching a bowles-simpson-domenici, gang of six, almost every economist that has spoken to this issue has said you need a balanced plan. and if we simply have sold our soul, mr. speaker, to grover norquist on asking people to help bring this debt and deficit down, mr. speaker, we will not succeed. but if we summons the turge and the will to solve this problem, we can do it, mr. speaker. i'm hopeful that my friend, the

majority leader, and i, will work together over the next number of weeks between now and november 6 to establish the preface for acting in the lame duck session in a responsible, cooperative, consensus seeking fashion to get this country on a fiscally sustainable, credible path. if we do that, if we do that, we could redeem this congress' performance. i hope we'll do that. i don't know whether the majority leader wants to make a comment or not. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i'm going to try and make sure that i don't bring on even more because i know our colleagues are waiting to speak. i would say to the gentleman there is not immune knit on his side. the minority leader of the house, the president of the united states has not endorsed,

the minority leader rejected bowles-simpson and the president has not endorsed bowles-simpson which is part of the issue the gentleman seeks some clarification on which is, where's the plan to get us out of this? anti-president was unwilling to even adopt that. but -- and the president was unwilling to even adopt that. the reason our side rejects bowles-simpson -- we bleve there are good things in bowles-simpson, i do look forward to working with the gentleman and seeing if we can work together, cooperative fashion, to get some results and resolve this cloud hanging over the economy. i'm looking forward to that. but bowles-simpson, number one, is not this so-called balanced approach unless you say, $1.22 in taxes, new taxes, with $1 in cuts, is balanced. we don't believe so. because we believe it has a detrimental impact on the growth of the economy.

we also believe the bowles-simpson revenue target of 20% of g.d.p. is the highest target, and something that is ex-- exceeds that which we have been at pretty much over the last 70-some years for three years. we believe that is too much ofal revenue flow into washington for washington to make the decisions. we've got an issue there about the amount of taxes and the size of government. totally legitimate discussion point, yes, but an issue. it's not just rejection out of hand. like the minority leader and the president have said. they reject that. we say, this is why and then we also say the disproportionate driver of the deficit is health care entitlements. the gentleman and i both agree upon that. how are we going to deal with this? bowles-simpson leaves in place the structural nature of those programs now and doesn't address the fundamental problem

of growing unfunded liability. we want to solve that so that the safety net programs are there for the future and save them. that's our position. and so i do, i do look forward to working with the gentleman. there's some great things about tax reform in bowles-simpson. i want to work with the gentleman on that. and if we can't have a conversation about resolving the deficit and spending. so again i try not to invoke any more time, mr. speaker, and i yield back. million hoyer: i look forward to working with him as well, mr. speaker. because there is no more important issue that confronts us as a congress or us as people, and no act that we could do would give more confidence not only to our own people but to people around the world that america has got its financial house in order. we need to do that. we can argue the specifics one

way or the other. but, mr. speaker, we do have a difference. we had that difference in 1993 and we argued about it. we believe that we won that argument on the vote and we won it, in my opinion, on performance. we argued again on it in 2001 and 2003, and we believe we lost on that argument. which is why we were in the deepest recession at the last administration this country has been in my lifetime. i'm not one of the younger members of this body. but i am with the majority leader hopeful that we can work together and come to agreement on that on which we agree and move forward. the american people, i

>> in that sense, the united states is the indispensable power. it is not the cliche. i think it is true. i want the united states to be the political dominant power in the middle east not china, russia, iran. it is really a foregone conclusion.

>> the altmire burden for this struggle rests on the shores -- the ultimate burden for the struggle rest on the shoulders of the people in the region. it is going to be complicated battle that will go on for a while. i think the u.s. can play a role if it uses all of the tools of its power, including diplomatic and political, to move forward. i believe that in 2012, we are in a much stronger position than we were in 2006 in the middle east when we were stuck in a civil war in iraq, when iran was moving forward with the smoke -- nuclear program, when hamas won the elections in the west bank. osama bin laden is dead and dozens of al qaeda operatives.

we are at the very beginning start of a process. we can tactically debate the partisan debate here at home. i think if we keep focused on the strategy and the bigger issues of how do we actually continue to try to constrain iran and prevented from getting a nuclear weapon, if you take one point away of this, it sounds muzzled. it is complicated. and the people of the region increasingly will have a say in setting their policies. but the u.s. still leads to stay engaged as a leader in leadership is not simply mean military intervention to read it means a range of tools -- intervention. it means a range of tools.

>> one last question. we are running a little bit late. >> i have a quick question on the financial situation. in terms of backing of these radical groups -- we are added to a hard economic condition ourselves. right now the announcement for another quantitative easing will devastate our economy. i went to one of the hearings in the senate on the hsbc -- banks involved in some of the financing of the radical groups in saudia arabia and other parts of the world. my question is -- given the

treasury also involved in collecting funding go to the syrian army, to 1 to $50 million for training militants in turkey, how you stop this and hat do you see is the u.s.'s involvement in creating this condition where these things like what happened in libya right now happens? with glass stiegel prevent that? >> at it reenacted the great depression is probably a glut -- bad idea. -- i think reenacting the great depression is probably a bad idea. the bigger question is not so much the banks involved in terrorist financing all well that is an issue for another day. but more should our economic base be dictating that the retreat?

if there was one message i hear from people like rand paul, it is we cannot afford to be involved in this. so we should stop. >> i disagree. the real central question is how you match resources to meet threats. that does financial but also moral and other things. the two sources of power that we really have seen a revolution in the last 10 years -- the special operations command and our military capability. particularly since the middle of last decade. it is really revolutionary. and did not just about osama bin laden but the rise of joint special operations command. -- and it is not just about osama bin laden but the rise of the joint special operations

command. the second one, the treasury sanctions. when you compare it to the 1990's with serbia and other things, deeply impressed with what our treasury officials have them with a price sector. hone those tools to siphon off those sources of financial support. is it came over? nope. but very much a work in progress. this will raise very difficult questions. countries like saudia arabia and private sources of support. who is funding these people killing our soldiers? having those schools of cutting off -- those tools of cutting off money supplies, we have seen domestic -- dramatic improvements. >> with that, i will thank my

speakers here today. thank you for being here. and our audience -- there will be a lot more to talk about not just in the coming days but months and years. taking all very much. [applause] -- thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> held rogers talks about the appropriations process. and what congress might do during the lame duck session after the election. newsmakers, sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> i watched c-span because they bring us in the news in an unfiltered manners. i can watch whatever national of that is going on. i do not have to worry about some experts are supposed expert trying to tell me what i should think about it. this is a chance to see what is going on and make your own opinions. some new stations lean to the left, some to the right. some claim they are down the

middle. it is hard. if there is no one talking and just an event going on, you know what is said and you commit your own opinion. >>paul boyd watches c-span on comcast. c-span, created in 1979. what you as a public service by your television provider. as a publico you b service by your television provider. >> paul ryan speech at the family research council's annual values voter summit. he is introduced by william bennett. also speaking at that event, minnesota congresswoman a former republican presidential candidate michele bachmann. this is about an hour and 10 minutes. >> thank you so much. hey, everybody. it is morning of debt -- in

america. how would you like to hear from dr. william bennett next? [applause] he rates in our a valuation forums as among our favorites. we are delighted to have him come. he will be introducing our vice- president a candidate paul ryan right after this. [applause] let me mention a couple of things about this great man. he has written for many of america's leading newspapers and magazines. also appeared on many of the nation's most influential television shows. he's also written and edited 16 books, two of which, "the book of virtues" and the children's book of virtues are among the most successful selling books of the past decade. he is well known as a republican but is often crossed party lines to pursue important, purposes.

he is -- has worked closely with democratic leaders to fight for our culture against the decline of popular culture. and also to end world wide religious persecution. thanks to his brilliant mind, his writings and speeches, he has been extraordinary influence on america's political and social landscape. ladies and gentlemen, and give a great warm welcome for dr. william bennett. [applause] >> no, i am not paul ryan nor was meant to be but he was my intern. [applause]

more about that in a minute. it is great to be here with you. they said that lincoln read only two books -- the bible and shakespeare. for reasons that i have told you about before, you know me. i am a pretty well-known catholic. i will not instruct this audits on the bible. you all read it on your own. that's a joke, that's fine. [laughter] my text today shakespeare. macbeath. act 4, scene 3. a think our country thinks beneath -- sinks beneath the yoke. it leads. each new day, a gash is added to her wounds. what are those wounds?

the men and women here before me this morning and know this better than i do but a quick recitation to read the employment rate has been stuck above 8% for 43 months. when barack obama took office, at a 7.8%. today is 8.4% three people are giving up. -- today it is 8.4%. people are giving up looking for work. since president obama took office, median household income has declined more than $40,000. half of recent college graduates are under employed are vastly unemployed. more people are on food stamps and have ever been on food stamps before. almost 50 million. poverty is at the highest number we have ever seen since the census bureau began keeping

track. 46.2 million people. black unemployment is near record high. 14%. these are gashes that would not be forgiven others if they were in a charge. would they? you can be sure of that. but as mitt romney courageously told the naacp in a very smart appearance and a very good speech,--[applause] yes. if i'm president, job one for me will be creating jobs. i have no hidden agenda. if you want a president who will make things better in the african-american community, you are looking at him. good for mitt romney. [applause] macbeth says the country sinks beneath the yoke. this yoke of debt.

today it the national debt is more than $16 trillion. that is heavy. sooner or later, that debt will sink us. the burden in the debt are more than economic. you did not invite me here to talk about economics. not with eric cantor and paul ryan on the roster. it is culture. and cultural and spiritual and moral power that troubles us. it is not just about our money. it is about our morale as a nation. there is a sense that we america are heading down. that the shining city on the hill is a growing dim. 57% of americans believe that we are in decline as a civilization. think about that.

more americans than not think we are in decline as a civilization. the long story of misery that is human history, the american achievement is high and it is unique. most of us today think it may be ending. is this what has happened to us? if so, this loss of morale is the worst thing this president has done to us. he has dumped our national morale and pride. i worked for a president, ronald reagan, who raised the -- [applause] raised the economy, stared down the soviet union, and lift the morale. one writer said the reagan, he

is captain who took the wheel to the stormy seas. he called the passengers and the sea. the opposite has been done in the tenure of this president. it gives me no pleasure to say so but it is true. so what is this? and why is this? where does this come from? 64% of americans believe we are on the wrong track. of those 64% would just vote on track. [applause] some tell us things are getting better. if things are getting better, what are people feeling so bad. it people are saying things are the better, what art things better? they are not. i will tell you another reason

why today the country weeps and leads, as shakespeare said. it weaves and bleeds for man who led the while killed and brutalized by a fanatic mob in benghazi. the reaction of our leadership was not anger, not theory. not the terrible [unintelligible] but to the slaughter, the spectacle that was the king -- that was bleeting a statement of weakness and wondering whether our own freedoms, go a bit too far. a muslim of brutalizes and murders an american ambassador, a representative of the united states of america, to disgrace

him and us. it would murder us and brutalize us, too. all of us. and our government reacts by shaking and wondering of the consequences of our first amendment. planes and inconsequential fool of a filmmaker with a paltry influence for the benham unleashed -- for the venom unleashed in another and part of the world. god help us. macbeath --ne in methinks i hear a voice. in the midst of this, there was a voice. mitt romney. he did not hesitate. he said this -- i am outraged by the attacks in libya and fidget

and by the death of an american cowslip worker in benghazi. it is disgraceful -- american consulate in benghazi. it is disgraceful to supply us with those who waged the attack. -- to sympathize with those who waged the attacks. mitt romney. [applause] whatever timing, wording one may want to bring up, one may want to suggest is an improvement on his remarks, his words had a shot of fact. didn't they? the shocked effect because they

were true. when they were condemned so broadly among the establishment press, and is likely they are true. [applause] these were true for another reason -- what he said. let me read again. i am outraged by the tax on the american diplomatic missions in libya and egypt. it is disgraceful that the obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks and but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks. mr. romney was talking about this attack and other things as well. he was talking about a history. his words had a shock effect

because in addition to being true, there were an unveiling. a revelation. a stripping away. and showing the feckless core of beliefs and sentiment that now animates leadership and in america. where do we stand with this part of the world? where do we stand with muslims who would do this to us. where do we stand with a country which has a taste to respond? is it an ally, not an ally? we do not know. the answer is not clear. much of the press quickly jumped in on mitt romney to kill this truth in the womb. something that is well practiced at. [applause] but that revelation and that truth will not die. or so i hope. the message was received.

i heard it on my radio show. i heard it from the early but that was not so important. then i heard it from my audience. from outside the precincts, the normal suspects, if you will. in the grip of the new intelligentsia, the political correct. outside of those places, the place is defined by advanced attitudes and professed moral and intellectual smugness. it was heard in texas. [applause] when ted cruz was on my show, the day after he had chick-fil- a car at his reception, he said we are going to take our country back with our values and our freedoms. [applause]

i said i know it is true in texas. i dismounted to be true everywhere else. -- i just wanted to be true everywhere out a writ -- everywhere. they might figure it out. otherwise they will be the lindesey lohan of states. california does cannot figure it out. what did i do wrong again? the message ron gave -- ropmney dave was heard in repeated. it was approved in the american people applauded it.

god help us to be seen and heard elsewhere. in ohio, and in colorado. [applause] and in iowa and virginia. [applause] and everywhere else. i will end with wisconsin. [applause] which brings me to wisconsin -- are you ready? let those commencement. paris just want to be sure that degree is in that hand of the child. get that man off the podium. -- parents just want to be sure that degree is in that hand of their child. get that man off the podium. paul ryan.